Going back to the moon isn't just about cost
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/... . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
PATREON: / davemckeegan
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
This video was sponsored by Brilliant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#nasa #apollo #moonlanding
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Most people would think that this video might be totally useless, but the fact that there are still people believing that the earth is flat and that we haven't been to the moon is a very good reason why this video exists
You’ve got a point there.
This video is only useful to logical thinking people who just don't understand why we haven't been back to the moon in more than 50 years. Flat earthers do not fall into this category. They are brainwashed people who are in a cult. Most of them cannot be pulled out with anything short of intensive deprogramming. It's no different than any other cult.
One of the problems with long term government programs is that programs which can take four, six, tens years, etc., often get undermined when politicians change a few years later. Using Nixon as an example, NASA had a number of goals, including occupied moon bases, but Nixon changed everyone's mind and scrapped everything, making - in hindsight - "Apollo" look like "a failure" or "a waste."
Similarly, IT overhaul projects get started under one administration, and the short-sighted voters change the politicians, who immediately say "Oh, that project that just started hasn't done anything, it obviously failed, so take away the money, so it will absolutely fail." Short-sighted stupidity.
Nixon lost his nerve. I'm surprised that after Apollo 13, they even made it to Apollo 17.
It's less plain stupidity and more trying to look like they're doing something/fixing a problem. It's both smart and dumb.
Yup, hence why NASA spread out everything they do throughout the country, to gain support and funding, while consequently making themselves into one of the least cost effective and fiscally inefficient organisations in the history of mankind, American tax dollars hard at work, lol
And what would one do with an "occupied Moon base". How many launches would it take to get there and what would it cost? Once we have a base, what would we do with it? How often would we have to resupply it? When is it likely to be close to self-sustaining? It will never be completely self-sustaining unless you are planning to move production to the Moon including semiconductor, batteries, coatings, solvents, lubricants, etc. If you are going to do this, you have to tell me what we are going to get for it that would not be cheaper or easier with robotics.
@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 Mine it for raw materials to make big ass mirrors for power collection and solar shading.
Flerfs: WHY DON'T WE COME BACK?!
Aslo Flefs: WHY NASA SPEND SO MUCH MONEY?!
That’s what always made me laugh. Like, they can’t even see the stupidity of their arguments🤣
It wouldn't matter. The Flers would just claim it's either CGI or staged because now we actually have the capability of making such stuff with the movie industry.
They don't believe the ISS space station is real.
Wtf is the ISSS space station?
@@TJ-Wwell duh, its international space super station of course 🙄🙄
International Space Station Station space station. Did I got that right?
@@TJ-W Remove a S from it and you might figure it out.
@@Tomichikasuper? FOR THE SUPER EARTH!
Have you tried to find parking on the moon? The place is such a mess. Dust and rocks everywhere.
Plus, if you get clamped the release fees are literally astronomical.
If you research the landing spots those were predetermined by observing where the suitable sites to land from previous missions
@@alladda470 r/woooosh
They should really speak to the manager about that.
And have you think the insurance cost ?
I know one reason: it's nothing there. It's a desert in a near vacuum. You can go to a desert on Earth for cheaper, without a spacesuit and fear of soffucating, depending on the desert you can hydrate by the locals or visit the Pyramids of Giza. But your points are great as well
Not necessarily the moon contains a lot of materials it’s just that without any habitat for humans it’s impossible to process them in an effective manner and the moon could also provide a jumping off point for ship construction but like I said without the habitat these two things are currently not possible
Well according to C.C., Chris from Westchester County NY, there should be a McDonald's up there so that there IS something to go there for.
Exactly - it's a place with gravity and pretty clear vacuum at the same time. And as soon as our tech will need such conditions on a large scale - people will "go back to the Moon".
There are plenty of reasons to go, it's just that most of them are the sort of thing that only private industry would be interested in. The government doesn't see the need, since most space science is either more easily done in LEO or by automated probes, and there's no strategic advantage for the military to go there.
@@SeanCrosser there is a dollar general up there too
And, the funniest point is:
They are going back until 2029 with the Artemis program, having the Artemis VI Orion capsule being already delivered by ESA
Just imagine when, in the next decade, during a crescent or diming quarter, people look to the moon and observe the lights of the lunar bases (you only need a city of 500 people for the lights to be visible from space)
Flerfs: "How cute, they pointed spotlights at the moon to make it seem like it's solid"
@@Espartanica
"Big deal they put a city on the fake moon they put up, it's not that hard at that point."
(Some people actually think the moon is fake, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually made this argument when the moon is settled.)
During the cold war, Sweden's military defence strategy was to make an invasion of Sweden to be too costly to be anything than pyrrhic. If I recall correctly,
a meaningful defence would be possible to maintain for three months, after which a capitulation would have been an almost given reality.
Cost to benefit "calculations" is not just found in the corporate world, but also in domestic and international politics, and in wars. How any one can see a
positive benefit to cost result when it come to war, except for actual battles on the battlefields, is perplexing to me. It is a "game" without a winner.
"I prefere to play games where all can win. One might get a first place medal, but the others will have had a worthwhile, and/or good time."
Oh, wars definitely have specific winners. Typically banks and defense contractors win big.
That’s essentially what Ukraine is doing right now. Making the cost too high. Hopefully putler finally figures it out.
The Apollo project cost $25.8 billion Adjusted to today, $257 billion.
F*CKING BARGAIN!. The overall US defence budget for 2024 (1 year) is about $1.4 Trillion.
The YT nannies seem to have deleted my previous response.
2024 overall US defense budget, $1.4 Trillion.
Yes, humans walked on the moon. That is settled fact.
There is NO reason for humans to return to the moon. We can do science from the moon using robots and mechanical devices THOUSANDS times more cheaply than sending humans back to the moon. The colossal cost of sending humans back to the moon is not justified for the little new science we will do there.
Imagine - that is a mere 1/4 of the yearly US military budget. It is 40% of the global military expenses, about as much as the next 9-14 countries combined. Which includes Russia, China, Saudi Arabia.
Granted that was before Ukraine and Israel, in the meantime it might have changed. The european NATO partners will have ramped up their budgets (in the meantime it is too embarassing to have to say you would run out of ammo after 2 days), no one knows the current russian budget etc.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 Manned missions are just one stepping stone to colonisation
It's kind of sad you had to make this video. Understanding the basics of budgeting is something even an 8 year old should know.
That’s it exactly. You nailed it. This video is a waste of time.
Hopefully the politicians learn the skill.
Because most flat earthers and moon-landing deniers have mental age of a 5 years old?
LOL
how tf is an 8 year old supposed to know about basic budgeting
Regardless of the overriding need to show the Ruskis who's the top dog in the space game, incidentally sending trained geologists there to do sample return achieved a scientific goal. Nowadays with e.g. advanced rover technology it would be wasteful to haul around fragile and costly in life support humans. The machines have long time endurance, and can be equipped with instruments to answer specific scientific questions.
Exactly
And there is plenty of sunlight for recharging the batteries!
Thank you for the video, Rusty!
You forgot to mention Bush Sr. 's Space Exploration Initiative in 1989-1993 that also tried to return humans to the Moon, establish a moonbase, and then on to Mars. Unsurprisingly, that also got cancelled due to the huge cost involved, especially because of the high costs that a cost plus program entails.
So, there's been a number of attempts, but the politics and the costs as always have canned them.
The shift to using private enterprise to go lunar probably makes it cheap enough for these political think-tank organizations to afford to depart the planet if their political ideology gets canned.
"I don't keep up with US politics these days..."
@DaveMcKeegan just imagine the biggest dumpster fire possible, and that's about what it looks like.
It's catching nearby buildings on fire as well. It's really getting out of hand.
It’s more like they built a very large dumpster that they threw the other dumpster fires into before setting that on fire as well… and then added sewage.
Bottom line: Not going back kind of proves that we DID go, because if we faked the moon landings in a studio we would be "going" to the moon every other month, wouldn't we? In fact, we'd be on our way to Mars.
Its hard to justfy 100s of billions to pick up rocks we already have samples of.
Having lived through that era, it was ... "um... turbulant". We were very proud of going to the moon, sure. But watching the casualty counts from Viet Nam every night on the news, the Kent State shootings, learning about DDT in the environment, the Cuyahoga River FIre... so many things were taking our attention and the public started focusing on other things. "Why keep going to the moon to get some rocks when there was so much that needed fixing right here on Earth?"
Reminds me of ua-cam.com/video/goh2x_G0ct4/v-deo.html
Correction- Dump said he would build a wall and MEXICO would pay for it.
It's as if Kennedy had said, we're going to the moon, and Russia is going to pay for it.
They haven’t been back to the on cause they saw there was a flat earth.
The Moon is a Cube!
So every celestial body we can see is demonstrably spherical-ish except earth which is flat?
i dont understand how anyone can watch a spacex launch, covered in multiple angles by live onboard video footage from launch all the way into space (where you can CLEARLY see the earth is a globe), and still claim the earth is flat... they cannot claim the rockets are not really launching, as they can be physically seen by anyone from many miles away. So do they just think that the video footage is faked even though it is live streamed the entire time? at some point after the launch do they seamlessly cut from the real live feed to a deep fake AI or CGI video that exactly matches the individual spacecraft... i just don't get it. especially considering it is a private company, not the government who is putting out the feed, since their conspiracy theories seem to be that the government wants keep the flat earth a secret?
The Flat Earthers maintain that the private companies are just false fronts for NASA.
various video angles, I can't believe you believe that. Today with A.I.??? where people do everything with images???
I think you could effectively begin and end the discussion with your last question. What would be the motivation for (an obvious) coalition of all nations to keep the flat earth a secret if, in fact, it was actually flat? What's the point? It's just a shape. Not even the flat earthers deny that the planet has been extensively explored and widely populated. As stupid as their belief is, they haven't done any better in finding a rational premise for the conspiracy itself. Keep in mind, this is far different than whether we actually went to the moon six separate times. That was the PR race with the Russians. Plenty of motivation there. But a flat earth? How about a pyramid? Cylindrical? Cube? Who cares?
There's also the moon dust (lunar regolith), which presents another unique challenge to going back to the moon. It clogs up filters and can render tech inoperable. If inhaled, it can cause severe pulmonary problems. Mitigating all these problems is just another barrier in returning to the moon.
Yes, it’s a barrier. So what? It didn’t stop us the first time !
@robertunderwood1011 The first time we went, we were unaware of the effects of lunar dust on humans and equipment. It's more of a problem than you think. It takes time and ingenuity to devise a solution to mitigate these very real and life-threatening problems.
🎶If you believe the earth is still flat🎵
So to summarise, the US didn't have the appetite to go back to the moon. But now there is the Artemis project...right? Right.
There's Artemis because Trump can't help himself from flexing. 😆 He wanted to go big and leave a mark as president, and have the US do a next BIG thing by having a human settlement on the moon doing research, so NASA can learn important stuff for the even bigger thing: people on Mars.
The American public very much lost interest after Apollo 12, once they had landed 11 and proved it wasn't a fluke. So much so that by 13, the networks had stopped broadcasting the video feed while it was in transit to the moon, though that suddenly changed once the explosion made the mission _interesting_ again. The brief resurgence lasted through 14, but even keeping a couple of the later missions was politically sensitive, despite their increased scientific objectives, and the final missions were simply axed, with the vehicles being reassigned to orbital missions. It is always politics. As to the lost technology: everything was produced by corporations who spent vast sums on specialist equipment that was dismantled once the cash was gone for future production, and once that happens there needs to be some heavy investment to get anything like it back, hence the billionaire space race by those who can afford their hobby.
Americans simply don't realise how much they're driven by spectacle.
@@SeanCrosser I agree. They are happy to be first and then leave it at that a lot of the time.
One thing I'd love to see is a company that lands a herd of rovers on the Moon and sells time to any and all who want a few minutes to drive.
Someone needs to tell Elon about this idea. I love it! 🤩
Okay, let’s stop and admire how brilliant (pun intended) that sponsor segue was!
Oregon discussed building a wall around the state, but decided not to because they were worried it would become a tourist attraction.
Dave, you have great knowledge of the workings of the US, politics, NASA, and otherwise. Keep doing the great work you're doing.
Good morning 🙂 Hello Moon
6:30 Quite so. First artificial satellite, first man in orbit, first woman in orbit, first multiple astronaut orbit, first space walk. Kennedy absolutely needed a first that would eclipse all of that or they would never have recovered from having something passing miles over their heads many times a day that they could do nothing about (Sputnik 1) - remember what the woman in the street said in an interview, "I think we should have been first." The whole thing was a cover for ballistic missile development anyway, von Braun simply suborned it to fulfil his desire for space travel (and everyone knows he would go to any lengths for that, including producing the V2 rocket as a weapon using slave labour during WW2).
We did it as a milestone, to prove we could, now it's a question of... Why? It's just a rock, why should we go back? Who would pay to go there again and why would they?
One of the potential reasons to go to the moon is that, being a relatively large satellite, the Moon could act as an easier jumping point to longer space travel. It would be game changing if we could source materials from there, but just the lower gravity of the moon would make for much easier launches. Imagine a space shipyard in the Moon, from which missions to Mars can be sent for mining resources, plus all the experience and tech you will need to develop and test regarding settlements of longer permanence.
There are many benefits, but they're not at the top of gooberment priority list.
Yes, humans walked on the moon. That is settled fact.
There is NO reason for humans to return to the moon. We can do science from the moon using robots and mechanical devices THOUSANDS times more cheaply than sending humans back to the moon. The colossal cost of sending humans back to the moon is not justified for the little new science we will do there.
Well, people paid a lot of money to visit Titanic, and I'm sure there are rich dreamers about the moon. . .and people who might pay millions to be a "researcher" aboard such a mission. . .
oh dave, you just don't know us as well as you thought. my fellow countrymen would *absolutely* vote to put up a wall around montana. we'll wall anything. walling is our thing.
That segway into your sponsor was EPIC!!
Segue* and I agree
I was today years old when I learned it's spelled "segue" and not "segway". 😅
But at least I'm not a flat earther! 😂
Always appreciate your clear and concise explanations and insight.
Your argument is not wrong, but I think people have not thought about the costs. An LEO shot from SpaceX goes for about $80M. Right now the Artemis mission will take somewhere around 10 launches for fueling. So, each moon shot is going to be over $1B. If we are going back to build a base, one has to think that they will need to send up a shot once a month (supplies and new crew). That means $12B a year in launch costs not including all other costs. So, what are we going to get for the Moon base? Realize that it might take at least a decade before we could get a base that is mostly self-sustaining. Now we are at $120B in launch costs alone with no practical idea of why we are doing this. And for those Musk fans, a Mars situation is probably an order of magnitude more expensive.
So what you're saying is that we could have a base on the moon for cheaper than Ukraine?
Yup, pretty BIG NASA/space fan here & I'm of the opinion that there are STILL very few legit/practical reasons for such manned missions. Absolutely we ought to double or even quadruple NASA's budget but, mostly just for pure science projects such as JWST & the Europa Clipper & such.
Well it's better to throw money away than donating to flat earthers.
I don't know the whole story, but I know enough that the FAA was side swiped a few years ago (5+?) with one of the bigwigs, or more, where some things were signed off on for quick turn arounds, and the FAA was more or less blamed for not catching the faults of the company prior to liftoff, in both space ship builders and aeronautics, ever since then, they more or less have no choice but to examine all the details with a fine toothed comb. Expected failure points to precise trajectories, A to Z and everything in between. I feel sorry for the FAA and those that have to play the waiting game to get clearance in this regard, because any deviation from what has been signed off for that flight leads to more red tape.
You have a nice dog. Part of the reason why I watch your videos.
The other thing about Europeans going back to Asia and Africa was that it was fabulously profitable. They weren't going to a lifeless, airless, waterless rock, they were going to lush, verdant places teeming with new and exciting animals and plants including spices that were wildly popular back home and in high demand. Magellan's first round-the-world voyage lost ships and crew, including Magellan and STILL made fabulous profits. If Armstrong and Aldrin had found the place paved with gold (or at least easily refined ores), we might have been back in a heartbeat and repeatedly, but it would have to be something REALLY valuable, not only to offset the costs of going there in the first place but to provide enough profit for the investors. And since everything that exists on earth is much much easier and cheaper to get to than stuff on the moon, it would have to be something that was ONLY available on the moon or available in MUCH greater quantities on the moon than is available on earth.
The USSR EVA clip reminds me that many called it a fake!
Two of the claims were that the feet never appear in the movie or stills and that the spacesuit legs were straight when inflated. The conventional wisdom was that inflated spacesuit legs were bent at the knees.
I'll try adding a link to my part of the first USA EVA.
The people saying "the US has the money to do another moon landing" are either not americans or not tax paying ones. The US can't even agree to spend money on fixing bridges, do you really think they could just get through another moon landing program?
O 100% I could see that just send things into space for no real reason instead of infustructre they pretty much do that already but the rockets stay on earth 😂
Well, the US *does have the money,* it just has other stuff higher in the priority list.
One other reason is that it's a hell of a lot cheaper and safer to send probes into space, rather than people. People have to be brought back. Well, they don't _have_ to be, but you'd have trouble finding astronauts who wouldn't be returning.
It’s kind of like finding new fishing spots. You spend a lot of money, you get to a new lake, you fish all day and catch nothing. Will you return to that spot ever again? No. So there won’t be a rush to return to the moon either for some grey space rock.
I think it was during Apollo 17 that the US Congress passed the Bill securing the development of the Shuttle. ISS was the logical solution, along with all the shuttle missions.
I love the we never went back argument. I always say, “I went to Jamaica on vacation once. If I don’t go back does that mean, I never went? Is Jamaica fake?
And, I think that there are other factors in play here. The Saturn V was a very big hammer, to crack a relatively small nut. Look at the sheer size of it, and what it did. Delivered 3 men to the moon, only 2 of whom ever actually landed, for a couple of days, and brought them home. Of all of that hardware, we have a handful of little conical cabins, plus 6 stranded descent stages on the Moon, 6 small piles of debris [ the used ascent stages, jettisoned, to crash back down eventually ], and some experiments, abandoned vehicles & cameras. It's a poor return on investment, once you've scored the first goal.
So, we moved our attention to larger capacity, more reusable launch vehicles, in the form of the shuttle. We launched some satellites, and the Hubble. We also used it to construct a working, long term, large scale station in space. As such, that was job done. Time for a new challenge. Take what was learned from STS, plus developments in rocket technology, for a new breed of better heavy lifters.
I think that there are 2 main aims. To practice building a functioning ground station on the Moon, to allow extended habitation, and to build a larger, new space station.
The longer term aim is a mission to Mars, and that is going to require long term habitation - you don't fly there, stay for a week & fly home again. It could be a stay of months. You don't want your first attempt to build a base to be literally your first [and last]. Anybody who knows the logistics of the Moon missions knows that to expand that by orders of magnitude, the sheer bulk of material will not be lifted off Earth by any rocket that we can currently conceive of, and ignore whatever Musk says. The whole thing, from vehicle, to payload, to crew, to fuel will have to be lifted, and assembled in orbit, hence the new station. A modular rocket factory.
This discussion reminds me of the movie (and book) the Martian, and all the loopholes NASA had to jump through. Obviously a series of ARES missions were approved, and the story goes into great detail how involved that process was, for example, sending the MAV (Mars Ascent Vehicle), HAB, etc. ahead of time, years before the Astronauts launched. When Watney was stranded, NASA had to practically scrap ARES 4 altogether, and cooperate with othe Space Agencies just to get him back.
So... A flerf is less important to impress than a big rival country? Outrageous. And how sad for the flerf.
They also forget (or never bothered to learn) that NASA's initial plans and goals were *much more ambitious than just landing a human on the moon. What we got with the Apollo program was already greatly scaled back for speed of success and budget realities.
A lot of valid points. I think Helium-3 'mining' is one of the ideas behind going back to the moon, but currently He3 has a limited use and it doesn't justify the expense required to get to Luna.
It’s the classic argument, “I could I just don’t think I should.”
The main thing preventing Apple from acquiring all other streaming services is not the cost benefit aspect, though that may be a large reason, it's the anti monopoly laws preventing them mostly.
Since we aren’t in a space race, the governments need to do it has dwindled. I would think scientists are the main push today. They, sadly, aren’t near the top of the food chain when it comes to government spending. That’s why you see these billionaires doing things. Scientists have more sway with them.
It doesn't necessarily make sense to go anywhere in space unless we plan to do something with that place.
Ok, that was an amusing sponsor segue.
the juice has to be worth the squeeze for it to happen thanks to politics. Now that technology has advanced and we are finding incentives to return we are going back. Now our mugs with overflow with flerf and moon landing denier tears.
The definitive answer to flerf questions.
The number of times is not an argument. There has only been one successful attempt to descend into the Mariana Trench, fewer times than landing on the moon, and no one disputes its veracity.
NASA knows it can't raise much money for the Moon; instead, the entire Kennedy Space Center is a huge commercial for travel to Mars. This could involve the moon as a staging point, of course, but that is secondary.
I still think we should note the speech by Destin, of Smarter Every Day, going through all the issues of the current lunar program. Again, it seems like a lot of politics, but it also seems not as well organized and planned out as Apollo. Everyone here should watch it if you have not yet already.
16:00 this was very disappointing from you of all people. SpaceX is not a reliable company with their Starship, Elon is using regulation as an excuse. This was figured almost two years ago he would eventually claim this. He's years behind. Perhaps educate yourself on the feasibility of the 1950's movie landing a rocket. Ya that wont work, he has to refuel one Starship with 12-16 tankers before it cam goto the moon. Think about that alone, then look at how lunar landers that have successfully landed were designed. I suggest Smarter Everyday from last fall where Destin questioned NASA engineers and leadership of WTH are you all doing?
13:35 was the cutest thing I've seen today
There isnt a military reason was the original reason.
The lunar rover allowed them to go further than walking distance so you are wrong about the distance they could go. Initially the small distance was a concern which was why they developed the rover.
As far as i know is the moon still as whide as Australia, and the moonrover isn't fast enough with not enough gasoline, so they have a relatively small range
One safety limit on the use of the LRV was not to be further from the LM than they could walk back within a certain time. The increased capability improvements of the backpack life support system used during the last three missions at the same time as the LRV increased the safety limit range, but it still was in effect. So he is not wrong.
@@MehralsvierZeilnelesne I did not say it increased their range to the whole of the moon! That would be ludicrous! It allowed them to go a bit further and as the other comment rightly points out it's not a great amount further for safety reasons. It also allowed for the transport of bigger or more samples. Also it was an electric vehicle so no gasoline involved lol.
@@cindylauritzen6325 Granted there were safety considerations on the range in case the LRV malfunctioned but it did allow them to go further due to the ease of movement compared to just walking alone and allowed them to get bigger or more rock samples in the time they had.
The most obvious argument that whole Moon Race was an achievement run is that Soviets scrapped their Moon mission immediately after Apollo success. There was simply nothing to do there after the flag was set up.
The Competency Crisis is REAL!
I heard they had built a whole bunch of Saturn V because they did NOT think they would succeed on the first try. They needed additional rockets for subsequent attempts that would have taken place within weeks of the first attempt.
And then, to their surprise, it worked on the first try. They then had to think what to do next.
The first try?. Did you see the number of the mission? Apollo XI. There were at least 10 missions before not counting the Gemini project and others.
You are the master of sponsorship transitions. I hope you know that
I've been alive for 40 years. And all these things you're saying have been obvious.
Why is it that so many people don't know these things or are really confused on them.
And then. Even though they're confused they walk around talking about these things like they know what they're talking about. And then you explain it to them perfectly. The way all intelligent people understand it and their brains just shut down. And they revert to because these same reasons, I just heard you explain.
So no one gonna talk about shoe smoothly he went into that sponsor
Why has no one made a new Concorde?
Case closed
I could study for my exams but I'm not doing that. Why?
@@zntei2374 because THEY don't want you to, clearly
Which is why you have to do it. Do your own research.
As always, your segue into your sponsor is on point. :D
So like most of advancements through history, countries having a dick measuring contest is eventually beneficial to the populace at large (except those souls who perish in wars or due to acts acts of negligence in the pursuit but even then as a whole the advancements are arguably overall beneficial - until that conflict destroys everything).
They did it, not because it was easy, but because it was hard.
Now it's just expensive.
If you want to see us go to the moon, make it profitable for a few politicians. If just 5 or 10 politicians could pad their wallet with a couple of extra million, people would be on the moon in months.
The moon is actually an untapped resource that will help with further exploration of our solar system. The asteroid belt is a massive potential source of materials for use back here on earth that would be more accessible if we had active fuel production and mineral processing outside of our gravity well. It will take massive investments to make it happen though, and the return on the investment will take decades - just the kind of thing public funds are appropriately used for, not just because there is an immediate payoff.
Not a Musk fanboy, but I do agree with him that keeping all our eggs in one basket probably isn't smart for the long term survival of the species. Learning to live and hopefully thrive in extreme environments is something that can pay off on our own sphere as well; a video on all the tech developed for the landings that is now in use in our daily lives may be a good follow up.
Well, betting on SpaceX for this is either just going to be costly and unreasonably time-consuming or it'll end in failure. There's good reason for the "red tape" and delays since it doesn't seem like that company is ready to handle such a huge task responsibly and that might have started to sink in with government bureaucrats.
i've heard the claim that we haven't been able to go back to the moon because we quote "lost the technology". Dave, do you think you could do a video on this?
i think he already made a video about it
Dave's channel followers are divided into two broad demographics: Very Bright, and Very Dim.
IQ and competency are also falling off a cliff. We're not going to Alpha Centauri, space bros.
The Back to the Moon Program is military based.
Excellent explanation!
Did he just compare spending money on Brilliant to throwing money in the bin? I think he did....
13:30 Go starship, wooooohhhh!!!
Sending humans to the moon in the 1960s was a tremendously dumb idea, and it is very likely just as dumb in the 2020s. This is coming from me, a glowing space enthusiast.
Am I for sending humans to the moon? No.
Will I cheer my lungs out when we finally return? You betcha.
Yah ❤️ love Rusty...🐶
i still remember when your streak was below 300.
I always say, safety standards!!!!!
It was (simply put) a "space race to the moon" and USA got there first :p (and then did it five more times) ... The sovjets: "Yeah, we got the point".
Apollo 18 was cancelled and turned into a space station, I'm assuming, because NASA figured they could get more science out of a massive space station.
I want to be the first person to play and beat, Zelda: Majoras Mask, _on_ the Moon.
Doggo just gave up at the end. :D
I always love the number of people (Americans probably) who make their claim based on what has been spent on Ukraine - and small fraction of the US ANNUAL Defence budget ($842 billion for 2024 against $175 billion in aid to date.), that it is. As percentage of gdp, the USA (0.35%) is only 17th on the list of nations aiding Ukraine. Even poor old UK is 12th with 0.45%, with Denmark at 1.8% topping the list. Priorities - I could buy a new motorcycle tomorrow, but am making do with my ten year old one. Moon? Easy - Cold War, beating the USSR, being first - political expedience.
It's because there aren't any more whales left on the moon.
We are whalers on the moon…
Moon is boring, let's explore Uranus 😂
Let's say we have the budget, the other issue is those in the Apollo program worked hard to get to the point of getting to the moon. Our Engineers today have no experience with going to the Moon. Especially with a different Landing Zone, different launch vehicle, different spacecraft.
The engineers in the Apollo program didn’t either.
Yes, there would be a rather steep 're-learning curve'. Some suggest that since we "Don't have the technology... " anymore, as 'proof' that we never went. After all, just how many people study "The effects of free-surface area in fluids while in a micro-gravity environment." (i.e. how does fuel slosh around inside a rocket... lol )
@@mikefochtman7164 the technology might not be physically here, but the knowledge definitely is. And the hurdles surpassed by the Apollo team created a lot of knowledge. It is all there, just waiting to be useful again, but unfortunately the bigwigs are not interested, so minimal spending it is.
Ironically enough, the increasingly reduced budgets forced NASA and many other space agencies to inovate a lot. The Voyager probes are a testament to just how reliable and redundant they could get with the available tech at the time. Same for the Mars missions, where the rovers keep surpassing their initial mission goals by years, providing a lot of data.
@@mikefochtman7164 Yes, humans walked on the moon. That is settled fact.
There is NO reason for humans to return to the moon. We can do science from the moon using robots and mechanical devices THOUSANDS times more cheaply than sending humans back to the moon. The colossal cost of sending humans back to the moon is not justified for the little new science we will do there.
@@ryanhulbert95 Thats my point, they took years, a massive budget, and loss of life to get to that point. It'll be easier today with heritiage in human spaceflight, but we will need a generation of engineers to gain experience in human spaceflight to the moon and beyond, and doing so with much more complex systems, a lower budget, and without the entire countries support during a space race.
A wall around Montana; hmmm....🤔
Comparing a moon mission to the Ukraine war, just highlights the fact that war is a better "business deal" than going to the moon...
Sputnik the expensive microwave 😂
Not even that. It transmitted on shortwave.
Bold of you to assume that everyone evaluates value for money when making purchases.