Why Is It So Hard To Return To The Moon If We Have Gone Before?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- The last time a human was on the Moon was in 1972. Since then, technology has taken giant steps, and more and more countries have developed their space program, but despite this, human beings have not returned to visit the Moon. What are the reasons?
The main motivation
To find the reasons that led to the trip to the Moon, we have to go back to the end of the decade of, the 60s. After World War II, during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in the Space Race, a stubborn struggle between the two powers whose ultimate goal was to place a citizen of the nation on the surface of the Moon.
The high cost of stepping on the moon again
Reaching the moon was not an easy feat to achieve because, in addition to the technological challenges we will discuss later, there were also many economic challenges.
What happened to technology?
Today NASA has the new rocket SLS ("Space Launch System"), which will be the successor of the Atlas V that was responsible for taking astronauts to the Moon; this rocket made its debut with the launch of the Artemis 1 Mission, which was a success, managing to take the Orion capsule to the orbit of the Moon, which will be the new spacecraft that will transport humans to the lunar surface.
The problem of fuel supply
Before successfully taking off, the Artemis 1 mission was canceled two times due to technical failures in the fuel system; these failures are the same ones that caused the cancellation of the Apollo missions and the same ones suffered by the shuttles.
Reusing rockets
The reason why NASA continues to use hydrogen fuel is its high efficiency since it is the element that provides greater thrust and less weight. Still, another important reason is the law; we are not talking about physical laws but political ones.
--
DISCUSSIONS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Commercial Purposes: Lorenzovareseaziendale@gmail.com
Tik Tok: / insanecuriosity
Reddit: / insanecuriosity
Instagram: / insanecuriositythereal
Twitter: / insanecurio
Facebook: / insanecuriosity
Linkedin: / insane-curiosity-46b92...
Our Website: insanecuriosity.com/
--
Credits: Ron Miller, Mark A. Garlick / MarkGarlick.com ,Elon Musk/SpaceX/ Flickr
--
00:00 Intro
00:15 The main motivation
2:02 The high cost
3:52 What happened to technology
5:50 The problem of flue supply
7:38 reusing rockets
--
#insanecuriosity #returntothemoon #moonlanding - Наука та технологія
Hi Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it on social networks like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, Tik Tok and Twitter.(Since the algorithm is not helping us in terms of views). You will greatly help the Insane Curiosity community to grow and improve more and more our upcoming content. A big thank you from all of us!
Jesus power proof. Warning it last 72 hours
No, technology is not more advanced, it is magical. By comparison. All of NASA combined had less calculating power than one of the cell phones from 10 years ago. Much less one of the multi-ship multi-gigabyte RAM super computers that we all have in our pocket right now. The metals technology is so much more advanced as well, every single thing has improved beyond the comprehension of what engineers back then whatever have dreamed is even possible.. and something that we effortlessly did. Because when you don't have anybody die during it, I can consider that pretty effortless considering people die testing boats and stuff for you here on earth. When you can do something effortless with 60 years ago technology and you can't do it today that tells you something
Just like those idiots that think the ancients carved and moved 100 tons stones rather than just make them in place, which is the only thing that makes sense
We even have Roman concrete as an example to prove that the ancients had better technology than we did. We only just recently figured out concrete that would do what theirs did
So the people that lived 10,000 years before the Romans having the ability to make stone that is in discernible from the way nature makes stone is completely logical and reasonable, especially since it has been demonstrated by using the same materials they had access to and then sending it into a museum to have them authenticate the stone as from ancient asswan egypt
0:32 oh that's so cute! You think that the goal of the space race was to put a man on the moon when in reality it was just a cover-up to build an ICBM program to deliver nuclear weapons
First time was just a movie :))
Now doing for real is harder
There was no one to the Moon.
It wasn't the atlas 5,it was the Saturn 5.
I noticed that
Easy mistake to make, if you don't' do your research well, otherwise not too bad, for a pop culture channel disguised as a scientific one. But main message is clear, "no money, no nothing" for manned space in that era except of course for the fabulous run of NASA unmanned missions to the planets and beyond!!
It doesn’t matter since it never happened.
No it was the Uranus 69.
Yes It was
You cant go back to a place youve never been before.
Be more specific, the moon deniers won’t get it
That’s the best logic answer and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to believe it greatest hoax since 1969 greater technology today and there still failing and eating crow as it’s result nice try though NASA fool me once shame on me , fool me twice shame on you . Oh well back to the drawing board give us a break!
Exactly😂
Somehow 50 years ago we had multiple landings on the moon using slide rules.
Today with amazingly more advanced technology not a single country can put a man on the moon.
Makes sense.
Forget man landing, nations are struggling in 2024 to land unmanned modules on the moon! And they say, three guys landed on the moon 54 years ago (with all the primitive scientific know how and technology....at least primitive as compared to that in the current era)!!! What level of fakery and cheating, just to be able to come one up against the Soviets!!!
We never went
Lots of lost explorers was probably the nail in the coffin. Just having a thruster burp would send you off course and to never come back or crash. @@King-kw1mo
@@King-kw1mo Shut up
It’s the ONLY logical answer that makes sense. We never did go.
No reason to go. The moon has no oil
Or anything else for that matter.
@@michaelmappin4425Absolute and total rubbish. Have you any idea what you just said ? The rare Earth up there is worth trillions, the rare moon minerals even more. You have no idea. The reason no one has massive minesites there already isn't even mentioned in this atrocious misinformational video, have you heard of the Van Allen radiation belts?? No one passes. 😮
@@michaelmappin4425 Rubbish, the mineral up there is in the trillions. Where are you learning that trash...Disney ?
@@michaelmappin4425 hahahaha except mineral worth trillions. Go learn.
What mineral is that. Helium B 3?@@deanhall6045
Never went in the first place. That’s why
got proof
Apollo 11 wasn’t the first “try” it was the culmination of multiple smaller step missions to test subsystems
My thought exactly. Other than the Apollo1 fire, every subsequent Apollo flight up through 12 was successful in taking the next step - these were not "failed attempts" but rather successful or partially successful learning steps leading to a full success on the first complete attempt to land: Unmanned test of Saturn Five(all-up) launch vehicle (4), unmanned Earth orbit test of LEM (5), test of Command/Service module in Earth orbit, second Saturn 5 launch with simulated translunar injection and return entry at high speed (6) Maned flight of Command Mod in Earth orbit(7), Navigation and flight to the moon with Command/Service modules (8), test of CSM/SM/LEM in earth orbit (9) rendezvous & docking, flight of whole system (command/service/LEM to the moon - testing lunar orbit rendezvous, (10) then finally adding the landing phase (11). Pinpoint lunar landing (12) Yes, 13 failed to land but was an epic success in improvisational engineering for survival. 14 was good, 15-17 added the lunar rover, which was amazing, and had extended EVAs and camera improvements that were incredible. What's often missed is that one of the biggest results of Apollo was the development of a system of management that could efficiently guide and control the whole range of technical processes.
All these steps were already taken by the Russians that's why it's unbelievable that we succeeded when we were so far behind the Russians
@@tedcole9936 Yeah. Apollo 11 was NASA's SIXTH successful landing on the moon. Plus all the testing of the Apollo & Gemini program. Every single Apollo flight 98% did stuff that had already been done before in space.
Apollo garbage was a trick to steal money from taxpayers. Nasa is a money pig. They use us like stupid, but they have never lift off.
Don't forget we learned a lot about rendezvous techniques in the Gemini Program before Apollo.
Everything points to that humans never went to the moon. Especially the video and photo material.
Yes. To me the only logical explanation for that is the USA never landed on the moon.
“It’s easier to make people believe a lie, then to convince them what they believe is a lie…”
A sense of irony isn't your strong point is it?
@@yassassin6425stronger than you
@@scottw4208
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
Again, the irony, was it intentional?
@@yassassin6425 Fake.
It's very hard to visit the moon a second time when you were not there the first time!!!!!
Maybe YOU weren't there, but 12 NASA astronauts stood on the Moon.
@@phildavenport4150 sure they did I'll bet they had a garden party up there and it was all staged in Hollywood because NASA hasn't accomplished nothing in decades.
@@phildavenport4150 I don't know where you got the number 12 at but it is actually zero because United States was never at the moon or on the moon
@@Anthony-gw3dc Then prove it.
@@billgamelson9964 a suggestion would go to the nearest telescope look at the Moon and find the flag that isn't there or the footprints that aren't there
We never went to the moon, how did they find a car on the ship? each wheel was 80cm in diameter, multiplied by 4, plus the engine, batteries and bodywork...
The rover was carried in the empty quadrant 1 bay of the lunar module’s descent stage, (folded in on itself, including the wheels several times) and stored with the underside of the chassis facing out. It didn't have a conventional engine which wouldn't have been any use in a vacuum and was powered by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a charge capacity of 121 A·h each (a total of 242 A·h), yielding a range of 57 miles (92 km).These were used to power the drive and steering motors and also a 36-volt utility outlet mounted on the front of the LRV to power the communications relay unit or the TV camera.
There are illustrations on pages 135/136 in the Haynes Apollo manual published in 2019, which show how the rover was folded up and stored and on page 199 a diagram which shows how it was deployed on the surface.
Who set up the lights ,the cameras, and how did president Nixon call them speak on the phone @@gunternetzer9621
At the time of Apollo science pundits predicted we would be shuttling tourists to and from the moon routinely by the year 2000.
There is tourisum to the Hollywood 😂😁
yup and even to the nearest star systems with the original Orion spaceship, throwing small nuclear bombs out the back for propulsion. Egad!! That would have been glorious to see happen, even today! :D
NASA budget was 20 times more in the 60s than it is now
yes, by percentage I think it was 5 percent of total, vs today at about less than one percent. Or equal to the waste and fraud of just one gov't welfare program, to support lazy people who won't work, and so-called "immigrants". That would bring it back to 5 percent if all wasting programs were taken into account and re-adjusted. Could happen "overnight" with a new fiscally responsible administration in D.C.
So, kids, if you like space, you know what to do!! LOL ;D@@bradleywilson5641
PLUS they were predicting we would be landing humans on Mars by 1979! I said then that it would never happen during my lifetime and I STILL say that!
Quick answer because we've not been, name one other event that technology goes backwards
Not only does it go backwards but cheaper
Nuclear power, physics generally. Actually there are many scientific endeavors which have reached dead ends or who's interest has stagnated. And yes, Americans Astronauts did land on the moon, several times between 1969 and 1972. No one really cares if you don't believe it.
Concorde.Sr71. Come to mind.
Technology hasn’t gone backwards, it’s the funding for such endeavours hasn’t been made available.
Elon musk also said it goes backwards. Prime example. We can’t build the pyramids like they done a lone time ago. It seems to get lost in time somehow, even tho I can’t grasp it myself lol
Prior to Apollo 11, all flights were stepping stones to get to the moon. The flights weren't cancelled. Apollo 1 was lost to the fire on the ground that killed the 3 astronauts. Apollo 10 went to the moon and circled it and did everything that Apollo 11 would do except land on the moon. Please get your facts correct.
All... what all? #1? Step? 2&3 ? Unmanned #4 & 5 & 6... more what than Gemini?
#7 manned LEO... 8 made a step like 10 did, which could of landed. *5 years!*
Yup, lots of work was needed, in Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs before the big event of the first moon landing over 50 years ago. Some people think we just up and went one day cuz we wanted to, no, it took lots of development, testing, prep work, like Starship is going through right now with all its failures and some successes.@@narajuna
@@narajuna
Yes they were all steps, I don't think you get that 8 was the first manned launch of a Saturn V, previous to that all manned Apollo launches were done with Saturn 1B's and the only Saturn V's launches had been unmanned, Apollo 8 was originally supposed to do what 9's mission was but since the LEM wasn't ready they changed it's mission to a lunar orbit which was never supposed to attempt a landing when it was originally 9's mission anyway and 9 took over as the proof of concept that the command/service module could dock to the LEM, retract it from the Saturn V, then the 2 astronauts could transfer to it, power it up and undock and fly on it's own which was always planned as an earth orbit mission, then 10 was proof of concept that it could be done in lunar orbit with the LEM descending to 60 nautical miles above the lunar surface then fire it's upper stage engine and return to lunar orbit and dock back to the command/service module.
Every single mission was necessary to prove that the hardware and computers would work on every step of the mission leading up to an actual landing on the moon.
No, they couldn't have landed before that, the LEM's weren't ready and all the different steps hadn't been tested, you just don't put astronauts in a brand new rocket that's never been tested, send them to the moon and have them perform all the different docking and undocking procedures with equipment that hasn't been tested, that would have been a serious invitation to disaster, apparently you don't know about the "pogoing" issues that were discovered in the unmanned Saturn V launches which you seem to think were so unnecessary, without those mission's they'd have been putting astronauts in a rocket and sending them towards the moon that had serious issues that were discovered during the unmanned Saturn V launches.
The people that ran the space program were a lot smarter than you, it's funny how you sit here all these years later second guessing what they did.
Apollo Eight was the first flight to the moon. James Lovell (who went twice), William Zander’s, and Commander Frank Borman
@@paulnelson5314
The crew of Apollo 8 also holds the record as the fastest human beings in history, 24,696 miles per hour, I don't know if it was because of a weight factor or what but their speed was just a little faster than the other Apollo mission's.
Perhaps because we never went there?
Correct mate.
This has lots of data inaccuracy
Indeed.
The US did a live feed from the moon landing in 1970s but yet we can barely have a direct link nor video live transmission today... 🙄🙄
The don't have a high gain S Band antenna, broadcasting to a dish that is 65 feet in diameter.
But they talked to Nixon we have never been to the moon.
Why are you lying? We literally had a Full HD live stream of a spacecraft REENTERING EARTHS ATMOSPHERE a couple of weeks ago. They couldnt even imagine that kind of tech back then
@@mezlay2 Live feed broadcasting from the moon? today? With a relay satellite, yes.
@@mezlay2 Who's lying about what?
Dude, if you confuse the Saturn V, the most iconic space vehicle ever built, with an Atlas V, then I simply can't take the rest of the video seriously. Sorry.
we haven't because it would be much more difficult fooling the public today. Most people can tell the difference between the Colorado desert and the surface of the moon.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The level of basic scientific knowledge amongst the public is shocking.
It's because the system of the Internet they build to enslave us backfired and now people can share information between each other in a fraction of a second across the planet. Trying something like this again or making it fake, people will be able to distinguish what's a studio and what's real.
😂
I have just one question - we have gone 6 times to the moon - and there was 0 interest of taking a single shot of stars. Ok not during the first or 2nd landing - but none during 6 attempts? You do not find it strange? Not to mention the infamous reply of Apollo 11 astronauts to the question during press conference - " did you see stars ?" Remember the reply?
The Apollo missions took many pictures of the stars. Apollo 16 was the first use of an ultra-violet camera and low light photography was utilised for stellar imaging.
The question that you refer to was asked by the late Sir Patrick Moore as to whether it was possible to see stars in the sun's corona.
As soon as the narrator said "The first 10 Apollo missions failed..." I stopped watching. That is not even remotely close to the truth, and anyone with any moderate interest in the space program would know that. This is a joke.
Because there's no Cold War/superpowers driving it. And the reason there were ten missions before finally landing is they were TEST missions prior to landing. Each one a baby step to the next mission until they finally did sit down on the surface. Prior to Apollo there were the Mercury and Gemini missions to test how launch, orbit, re-entry, , space walk, recovery, rendezvous & docking in orbit would be done.
Well obviously all that previous technology was destroyed as a NASA astronaut told us. It makes complete sense! I don’t know why anyone would think we’ve been lied to 🙃
Jeez, this again?
One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense 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 - the rest of the interview, 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 its 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?
I've heard it's because we're not welcome there.
💯
So much for hearsay.
Yeah...get off our moon 🤣🤣🤣
Still haven't worked out how to get astronaughts thru the vanallen belts hey
And so, the fundamental question is: did man really land on the moon in 1969?
No they lied
@@user-ot2ty7hd1f wrong , yes they did… google , how we know we went to the moon .
They did.
@@Lexi2019AURORA No, they didn't!!
@@amaratvak6998 Then why did you ask?
Hey Curiosity Squad! It was the Saturn 5 that took us to the moon, not the "Atlas 5". If this is the level of accuracy in your videos I'm glad I never subscribed.
I would like to watch them.
I think you answered your question with your discussions of the reduced funding for space exploration, "no money , no nothing" for anything "worthwhile" like going back to the moon, in this episode focus. But today there seems to be lots of money for things not so worthwhile, like endless welfare payments to those who do not work, the green new deal and EV subsidies, and student loan forgiveness, for just a few examples!
The cost far exceeds technology and safety precautions absolutely necessary for 100% success every mission.
They don't make gold aluminum foil and more.
If they have been to the moon several times, going back would be a cinch now, especially as technology is now so much more advanced! In fact, they should be able to go back with just 6 months preparation.
Don't expect a call from NASA any time soon.
Oh yea, they should have the space ship and the launch pad done by morning.
First man on the moon was not Neil Armstrong, it was Stanley Kubrick!!
Because aliens kicked us off and said never come back😂
Ha Ha! Get out! And don't come back!
Which of the 6 missions that landed got that message?
Yeah
Smart 👽 aliens!!!
They re lunarians that live there
😂Rubrick made a stunning movie. 😂
This is the answer. On Apollo 17, there is a plaque that reads "Here man completed his first explorations of the Moon December 1972, A.D. May the spirit of peace in which we came be reflected in the lives of all mankind" The Apollo program was over, just as it was planned.
In 1960s, can the communication band width support live TV broadcast from the Moon to the Earth? What kind power will be required? and How the power got to the Moon?
Because the first-generation lunar module’s batteries were not powerful enough and it lacked the bandwidth to operate a standard NTSC TV system, the TV pictures were filmed by a black and white slow scan television camera and beamed back to Earth, via a steerable 20-watt S-band high gain antenna installed on top of the lunar module ascent stage.
S-Band is a microwave that can penetrate radiation and antenna gain refers to the ability of the antenna to focus scattered radio frequency waves into a narrower beam, thereby increasing signal strength. High-gain antenna provides a more precise way of targeting radio signals and are therefore very essential to long-range wireless networks. Low-gain antenna tends to send its signal in a much wider sweep of directions.
The LM’s transmissions were then picked up by a radio telescope at a tracking station in Canberra, Australia. NASA then converted the image to standard broadcast signal which was transmitted to a communications satellite and back down to Houston where it was then broadcast around the world. The radio telescope on the ground for receiving was extremely large and powerful which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module.
The ‘unified S-Band system’ involved a staff of 4,500 distributed among 15 tracking stations and numerous switching centres around the globe. The telemetry and tracking system is explained on pages 78-79 in ‘Invasion of the Moon 1957-70’ (Peter Ryan).
A colour variant of the same camera was carried on Apollo 12, but this was damaged when it was pointed at the Sun and the sensitive vidicon tube burned out. On later missions the second-generation LM had greater battery power and a more robust, damage-resistant NTSC colour tv camera was used, along with a large unfolding parabolic antenna which allowed enough power to transmit a colour tv signal.
Has it been said it’s too difficult or they just not bothered to go again.? Like what’s the point in going back there?
Minerals worth trillions would be one reason. Im wondering if your comment is serious. Helium worth billions and billions. Are you being serious ?
While I'm here, why can't China rovers find any Apollo landing sites ? Odd ?
4:03 Proof check. The Saturn V took astronauts to the moon, not the Atlas V. 4:52 There were not 10 Apollo missions before Apollo 11. There were only 8 missions before Apollo 11. There was no 2 or 3, the remainder went up in numerical order.
Thank you for admitting that we did in fact go to the moon.
Maybe the answer is because we didn't reach the moon in the first place.
Wrong answer
You do make a good point! Yes, obviously the tech required wasn't that reliable when it came to extreme temp changes.
Flat earth too huh?😂
The truth they keep trying to hide.
Right answer
Because we never land in the moon in the first place 😂
The SLS costs a stupid amount of money per launch. I wonder how much more expensive it would be if it *didn't* reuse shuttle tech/hardware? SpaceX seems to do things by an order of magnitude less money.
Space X is a private company and has a vision that is beyond any other rocket company in the world. But NASA also was able facilitate the SLS flying to and from the moon over a record 26 day flight for vehicle capable of carrying humans. It is very expensive, but they still did something no one else has done in 50 years and did well.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 its took them ten years or more to finish the rocket and launch it. Not very impressive.
@@airfiero4772 To each his own. It still made it to the moon and back with hardly any issues whatsoever. By the who else has launched a rocket capable of carrying people to the moon and back recently?? Again exactly!!
I'm impressed with the progress Space X has made with starship, but it will be at a couple years before they can get to a nominal flight to and from the moon. Course it is designed as a reusable rocket so a successful landing of at least the booster puts it ahead of the competition.
One of The main reasons i am a believer that we didn't go to the moon because why haven't we been back it isn't because of the budget its because we never been 😂
Good point! Bell labs invented the first transistor in 47. These devices took many years to reach perfection so they could withstand large temp swings. In the 60s I repaired a great many of these new solid state devices. Like am radio receivers mostly damaged by placing them in direct sunlight on the beach. Cold wasn't much of a problem next to that component damaging heat.
@@Blacksheepishot There is no atmosphere on the Moon to efficiently ‘bind’ lunar surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it
Great video and information !
No.
It is full of errors in the "facts"
Great? You're kidding, right?
Do you really believe that the first 10 Apollo missions 'failed'?
The Decepticons have altered the market and made it too expensive to return, I saw it in a movie!
because it never happened...the technology just wasn't there in 1969 or any other year..
What technology is required? Be specific.
The 1960’s was a time of great technological development as British Prime Minister Harold Wilson pointed out in his ‘white heat’ of this ‘scientific revolution’ speech in 1963. From an aeronautical perspective there was supersonic and hypersonic aircraft, spacecraft, satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Amongst a myriad of aircraft, the U.S. produced the hypersonic X15, the supersonic SR71, the HL10 re-entry vehicle and the first operational variable geometry swing wing aircraft - the F111. In Europe we had the supersonic Concorde and Harrier VTOL ‘Jump Jet’.
Especially now. Hyper tech, mega bucks. Somehow we lost the tech and the interest. oh dear. What will they think of next? Mars, I believe.
1:54
That's a little more than you stated... by orders of magnitude
4:12 Orion will not take folks to the lunar surface. Orion is merely the updated CM.
Movie sets are much more expensive these days. Also, the realization that many third party entities have the technology to track these "flights".
Movie sets? You think Apollo was a movie set? Fascinating - where?
What on Earth are you talking about - all of the Apollo missions to the moon were tracked by independent third parties as was the 2022 Artemis 1 flight.
Staged n didnt go
The first ones were tracked, they're all fake, but CNN won't report that now, will they ?
@@yassassin6425 there you have it. Always conflating non human flights to justify your fairy tale. Artemis will never have humans on board because they simply would not survive the Van Allen radiation belts which are 7,200 times a lethal dose. Learn. Somehow, this little factor is always overlooked when telling this fairy tale. Its impossible now, it was impossible in 1969. Live with it. No man has walked on the moon and likely never will. The radiation requires 12 inches of lead to protect humans, Apollo had none, this is ridiculous now. How about addressing this before trying to convince anyone that they actually fluked what no other country can achieve, first attempt with one millionth the computer power of a cell phone. Then explain how this remains the only known example in human history, of technology going backward. Start there, there's a heap more.
Question is; With weight requirements literally measured in ounces NASA somehow allowed for a 1500 pound Car "Rover", where it was stored is a whole other tale. I believe Armstrong carried it in his pocket?
Well never know why but we really do.
California is currently spending 120 billion on a high speed rail line that nobody really expects to be completed.
Its not for a lack of money.
It a vehicle for laundering money into various people's bank accounts.
It is, because the money wasn't used in the right place. Especially the ca.
Exactly
MONEY = HUMAN ENERGY....
paper....coins....figures....are illusion....
“The complexity of human spaceflight suggests that it is unrealistic to expect the program to complete development more than a year faster than the average for NASA major projects, the majority of which are not human spaceflight projects,” authors of the GAO report stated. “GAO found that if development took as long as the average for NASA major projects, the Artemis III mission would likely occur in early 2027.”
The report highlighted a lot of remaining work by both SpaceX and Axiom, who are principal contractors of the Artemis program.
A critical part of the mission is considered to be SpaceX’s Starship rocket, which has been under development in Texas.
The private space company owned by CEO Elon Musk has yet to successfully finish a rocket test that proves the spacecraft is capable of reaching orbit and returning to Earth.
Despite the spectacular failures that have resulted in explosions, SpaceX and NASA leadership have lauded the progress that has been made on the Starship rocket.
Basically, you had all these engineers, technicians, shopworkers, janitors, people who in reality knew nothing about Space ship making. (brand new)
*October 1963,* Joseph F. Shea was named Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (ASPO) manager, responsible for managing the design and construction of both the CSM and the LM.
Just *5 years* of twiddling their first Deepspace Ship and BANG to the MOON ! 🤯
Dude you wrote a long paragraph in one sent sentence 😂
Elon Musk is a conman
Comments section has been more entertaining than the video really. I find it facinating how peoples opinions on the matter are so divided and it makes me wonder what the truth really is to why we havnt returned, or have gone in rhe first place.
One man was the first to reveal the truth:
Bill Kasing r.i.p.
We're all witnessing the end of lies.
Bill Kaysing???? The truth?
Is this actually serious?
Bill Kaysing and the truth were separated at birth.
@@yassassin6425
Do you have any proof?
The answer is simple...No man can go to the moon...If the moon landing really happened, the camera man was the first to set foot on the moon, not Neil Armstrong
lol, you really don’t realize the camera was in the equipment bay and was released after landing and the beginning of the climbing down the ladder?
Sounds kinda fishy that there are laws that say they HAVE to use certain rockets and fuel..Sounds like someone owns or has stock in a certain company that makes these things 🤔 someone should look into this because something doesn't Sounds right..so there's a law saying that even if there better or safer ways they can't because....LAWS 🤔🤔🤔🤔
I don't know for certain, but just maybe your title answers its own question.
No mention of sending people through the van allen belt, because the tech was "lost"?
Because we’re not just going to the moon. We’re trying to establish a permanent presence on the moon as well as a hub to mars. That is a huuuuuuge difference to what they were doing in the 60s.
All those things would have occurred by now had we actually gone to the Moon which we never did
If we went to the Moon with 1960s technology.Why do we need to relearn how to get back to the Moon? Been there done that. Mars Direct!
So why do we need permanent "moon colonies" as President Bush called them ... anyone ?
@@rc44004 Because no one never been there
But what's the point of sending humans to Moon or Mars.
I don't get it, for science resource it's better to send robots.
We need to clean Earth not to put ours trash on another planet... 😢
If you think of it, it was a great feat of engineering to get there. The Lem had to contain two space suits the astronauts had to get into in that tiny space. A rocket motor and its fuel. Provisions for a ten-day trip including water and oxygen. Computers and transmission equipment. The Lunar Rover. Also an airlock for exiting and entering. All bombarded by the Solar Wind (temperature 250F in sunlight, 250 minus in shade).
almost seems like an impossible miracle
Yes would love to see them EVA suit dress in that cubicle (more than 1 broken button), and lots of Oxygen for 3 eva exits, plus a garage space for Rover!
Not only the first throttle rocked ship landing but it hoovered like a helicopter too!
The astronauts were never exposed to the maximum temperature on the Moon which is +260F at mid-day. With no atmosphere this refers to surface temperature not atmospheric temperature. Every lunar landing was made shortly after sunrise. One lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly 15 Earth days, and the astronauts were only on the Moon for a maximum of 3 Earth days, so they weren’t there long enough for the Sun to be at its highest and hottest.
@@narajuna Apollo used a rebreather system similar to that used in nuclear submarines where the carbon dioxide is chemically scrubbed out of the air and pure oxygen is added from storage tanks. In the spacecraft the oxygen is stored in liquid form, allowing tremendous amounts to be stored in a small volume.
The rover was carried in the empty quadrant 1 bay of the lunar module’s descent stage, folded and stored with the underside of the chassis facing out. There are illustrations on pages 135/136 in the Haynes Apollo manual published in 2019, which show how the rover was folded up and stored and on page 199 a diagram which shows how it was deployed on the surface.
I like your question ls but am saddened by your lack of ability to actively seek the answers. Each question has an answer. Easy to find and hard to refute
I watched tv as a kid in the early 70s. So did my mom. Does anyone ever remember seeing the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th moon landings on the news? They must’ve not been such a big deal right? Everyone thought “Been there, done that, show us something new”, right?
I watched the first one in 1969 when I was ten-years-old and I don't remember watching any after. I found out about ten years ago it was all fake.
@@bargeman100
No, you found dumb conspiracy theory ten years later that told you what to think about a subject that you know absolutely nothing about whatsoever.
Because someone or something doesn't want our presence there since the 60's.
😂
Something similar to what went on with the 'Tower of Babel'.
I think that it is good to think twice before sending humans to the space. There is so much robots and automated probe can do much better and cheaper. With the large budget required to bring people to the Moon and the more to Mars we could get a lot of scientific gains from Venus to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
Not sure WHO censors these winners video comments & replies, many invisbles!
dear of dear
Not getting SaturnV ... could be usually I "dont get anything"😄, sure didnt get that in my reply.... (nor did I get in the Comment...??? >>> Apollo
I believe the key challenges lie not only in the advancements in technology and the escalated costs, but also in the shifting priorities of space agencies and the geopolitical landscape, which greatly influence lunar exploration efforts.
Strange belief, older technology usually has de-escalating costs.
The United States spent $25.8 billion on Project Apollo between 1960 and 1973, or approximately $257 billion when adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars.
The hardest part of going back to the moon is your first have to go to the moon first
Which they did - nine times.
It's ironic how in Interstellar people believed we never went to the moon too. Ignorance knows no bounds and it was correctly shown in the movie.
The reason is we never went and no-one can leave earth. There is a firmament above us. We are closed in
That's interesting. What altitude is this supposed dome and where are the sides?
There was never a man on the moon. But a man has been to Uranus!😂
Like a Secretary of Transportation.
@@maxwellcrazycat9204 Is that a trans joke or a banging the secretary joke?
Good one !
If we already landed humans on the moon six times, it should be simple to do it again. The reason it's not is because we never did.
Or were told by the 'higher beings' to stay away
@mahalallel2012 Why would they want us to stay away from our own moon? They have the whole Universe to explore. They would be amused at our rudimentary spaceships if we had gone, which we did not. In all actuality, they can easily monitor all our TV broadcasts and they wonder why these beings lie about such things. They probably are waiting for our "civilization" to advance to a truthful civilization before they make contact. Will it ever happen?
That's not how things work. The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” and have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
@@gunternetzer9621 Excuses. Funny how SpaceX can engineer sustainable (reusable) rocket technology in less than 20 years with one-tenth the budget of NASA. Also, there are over 800 satellites operating continuously WITHIN the Van Allen Belts. Why not use that radiation-hardened technology?
@@theconspiracydentist Does Space X have the heavy lift capacity required for a flight to the Moon? Which parts of the Van Allen belts are they operating in? The problem of radiation damage to modern computers will be solved but testing it is a good idea.
If NASA had stayed with the Saturn rocket and not gone to the Shuttle, money would have been available. Shuttle was a man killer and budget eater.
The SLS is basically the shuttle launch system w
We have Never been there ...
Hard to think about the Moon when a cart of groceries cost $800.
I'm 64, healthy. I have no hope of seeing a man on the moon in my life time.
Apollo 11 was the 5th manned spaceflight of Apollo. Every manned flight was successful, as NASA built upon what they had learned from previous manned missions to test each of the various subsystems of Apollo. Yes, the 3 astronauts of Apollo 1 - Grissom, white, and Chaffee - died when a fire consumed their spacecraft on the launch pad. However, even the unmanned Apollos the led to the 1st successful manned mission of Apollo 7 were, for the most part, very successful.
We never been there, think about it
I agree. They can't figure today how they managed to go to the moon 54 years ago.
Oh shut up
Mostly it is a lack of ambition. Not just because we are lazy, which is part of it, or lack vision, which is also part of it, but because a lot of people just feel kind of defeated with how screwed up society across the globe is.
The FUNDING dried up. Its too damned expensive. Would cost well over 100 billion dollars. Nobody has the $$$
@@Zurround Considering that we spend $800billion yearly for the military $120billion budget for NASA isn't exactly out of the question
It is the interest in going
Without something to gain from going to the moon interest will continue to lag
The other option is that another country, like China, tries to claim the moon as their territory
@@Zurround the US spent $766 Billion on the military last year alone. $100B is not that that much money for the US Government
The waste and fraud in the many gov't welfare programs alone would fund anything you can think of to advance society for the good of all, including space, ...instead of all that money going "down a rat hole" for the benefit of the mostly useless members of our society, who take, but never give back anything of value!
....dear ambition towards what? Golfing on Moon?
Nearly 60 years ago, 6 trips to the moon with 12 astronauts, joy riding on the moon, yet today, can’t even get a moon rocket off the ground without exploding. Stop kidding yourselves folks.
*_"yet today, can’t even get a moon rocket off the ground without exploding"_*
Sure about that are you?
@@yassassin6425look it up bubba
@@yassassin6425 Fake.
DUH! It's because the moon missions were completed, the launch pads were rebuilt and the Saturn V rockets were decommissioned. What would be the reason to rebuild all that just to see if out flag needed re-stabbed?
Because we never went to the Moon technology always gets better but they would have you believe that we went with 1960s technology yet we can't go today
That's a pretty small club you belong to that still thinks that NASA didn't send the Apollo mission to the moon. How many other conspiracy theories have you bought into because people who deny the moon landing usually follow other ideas ALSO not supported by science??
Ask yourself a few basic questions. Why build a 365 foot tall that was the most powerful rocket to take off at the time? We saw it rise into the sky. Where did it go?
Why did three astronauts die on the Apollo 1 tests? If they weren't going to the moon why risk lives in tests? Then there are the many thousands of NASA employees who would have to be in on the conspiracy. Or how about the largest building at the time the VAB or vehicle assembly building used to build the Saturn V and later shuttle and now SLS? Was that all a facade?
Get real man!!
9:00 it's not called Skylab , it's called the ISS?
Skylab was an earlier space station, back in the 1970s. Interest in human missions into space had declined so much by the latter seventies that Skylab was allowed to fall out of orbit in 1978 because Congress refused to appropriate money to refuel its station-keeping rockets. ISS eas built later, over more than twenty years.
Will be even harder now with starlink satellites up there?
Nothings hard we just did it 🎉🎉
No human ever went beyond low earth orbit and never will. They would need hospital treatment immediately.
van allen belts....
The moon landing was a hoax 🤣🤣
Because we weren‘t there yet.
Because aliens warned them not to return there
The simple answer is. because we never went in the first place. To paraphrase the 18th Century Philosopher David Hume, ''The simplest explanation is usually the right one,''
*_"To paraphrase the 18th Century Philosopher David Hume, ''The simplest explanation is usually the right one,''_*
Actually, no. Occam's Razor does not always apply.
*_"The simple answer is. because we never went in the first place."_*
Given the incontrovertible scientific, technological, historical, independent and third party evidence in support of the six landings that you would need to explain or handwave away, that is anything but a simple answer. It is however an answer for simpletons and those with absolutely zero knowledge of the subject.
This video is full of incorrect facts
The reason is we never went in the first place
Oh stop it.
Stop what the truth they can't even land an unmanned craft after over 50 years think about it
@@donhabel1590 Why lie? There have been several successful landings, from 4 different countries, of unmanned craft on the moon since the Apollo missions.
@@firecloud77 yeah successful right tipped over could you imagine that happening with astronauts on board but they did it back in 1969 thru 72 with minute computer 🖥️ power think about my friend ☺️
@@donhabel1590 Your entire argument is a non sequitur. Learn to apply logic.
JUST BECAUSE....technology IS NEW.....does NOT mean it is "better"!!! For example....Many people TODAY argue that cars of the 1960s to the mid 1970s were "of poor quality" due to "planned obsolescence" which isn't exactly as true as cars became by the mid 1980s to present!! Basically cars in the 1940 to around 1975 still employed tried and true building techniques, that seemed to last far longer and were vastly (even wildly) superior to the plastic parts and "everything is disposable" logic of the late 1980s to present!! In other words....auto manufacturers used a material known as "METAL" to build cars until 1980, and after that every part started to become "plastic throw away junk" afterwards!! And today, nothing is "built to last" as today's thinking is "Built to be cheap", then the companies sell it for an obscene profit, for items that last a 1/3 as long as the prior model!!
And there ARE benefits to using different materials like Aluminum and Plastic for parts, BUT the trade off IS a steel pulley, for example, can last 50 or 60 years, while the plastic replacement is meant to be "tossed out" when it fails.....then there are ZERO replacement parts for the plastic one, FORCING YOU to buy a new car, instead of simply replacing the pulley!! Face it car companies ARE IN THE BUSINESS of selling YOU a car.....not selling YOU replacement parts!! And if they can figure out a way to make a car last ONLY 5 to 7 years, then sell you a new one, they will make more parts out of plastic!
Of course the benefits are....first those parts are cheap to make, make the car weigh less for better fuel economy...but does that necessarily mean "it is better"???? Especially when 50 years ago paid labor built a car that cost $2500 brand new....and today that same car is built by a robot, and costs $30,000 with far less human interaction to construct it!!!!
I thought it was the Saturn V rocket they used for the moon missions?
For me the reason why mankind hasn't gone back, is today we are not willing to take chances with others lives. The original landings were risky to say the least. The only reason man went at the time was due to the cold war. When we got there we brought back some rocks and placed some scientific equipment in place. But we now know how dangerous space flight is, especially with radiation from the sun. It also cost money that could and maybe should if been used for better purposes. Just getting into space is dangerous enough, as the personal are sitting on top of a large bomb. But the main reason for myself would be why go back, we have rocks and know most if not all the science of the moon. But I for one would not become an astronaut for any money or fame, considering the parts are manufactured by the lowest costs due to budgets.
I doubt any astronauts go for money or fame. That is a superficial desire anyway. The astronauts are driven by the excitement of exploring space and the science needed to get there.
And the reason to go back to the moon is much more then the science of the moon. Eventually the goal is to build a base on the moon. From there it would be easier to get to Mars primarily because the fuel needed to reach escape velocity is far less. Eventually, space travel could be almost common place. There is also much ambition to eventually mine asteroids for valuable ores as they become depleted on earth. Again much easier to access from the moon once a base is established there.
1). Van Allen radiation belt.
2). Alien settlement on the dark side of the moon.
Are you joking … I hope so
Havent got there yet...
On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been at least ten had it not been for the near catastrophe and aborted landing of Apollo 13 and the premature cancellation of the programme and with it, Apollo 18, 19 and 20. There have also been a multitude of unmanned landings. Six government space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions. Three private/commercial missions, Beresheet (hard landing), Hakuto-R (hard landing), and Odysseus (soft landing) have also reached the lunar surface.
Hope this helps.
IT WAS ALWAYS DIFFICULT
SO THE SOLUTION WAS TO MAKE A MOVIE AND CLAIM WE WERE THERE
WHEN TRYING TO DO IN REAL LIFE....A LOT OF PROBLEMS COME UP
Caps lock - must be true then, .
Quick question. How many Starships by SpaceX are required to refuel a Starship in orbit? Does anyone know?
Between 4 and 8 depending on how much weight/cargo is being taken to the Moon
You don’t state destination. Assuming moon and return latest publication estimates 15 this is a significant increase over earlier estimate. I will wager that it never happens. A less complex less ambitious mission will be substituted.
Spot on dude! I would say the whole thing is just to keep SPace X afloat with the taxpayers money@@jdmather5755
With present administration, that mission would not be approved!😂
“Done it before” wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Reason why we should "return" to the moon is We should try to build temporary stay base unit(s)on the moon to move towards our terraforming literacy as a human species. The challenges to terraforming the moon probably outweigh the challenges terraforming mars by a handfull of theoretical challeneges.
1.) Travel back and forth 225,700 miles
2.)Undoing the Moon's Tidal Pull from being Tidally Locked with the Earth
3.) Increase the Surface Pressure of the moon to begin building an atmosphere
4.) Have to Establish an Atmosphere
5.)Build and establish Moon Bases Underground the moon
6.)Moon has Wildly Fluctuating Temperatures 123 Degrees Celsius 253 Degrees Fahrenheit by Day and -153 celsisus/-245 Fahrenheit by night Near its equator. Near its north pole, deep craters can reach -245 degrees Celsius/-410 degrees fahrenheit (266 degrees colder than coldest places evee recorded on earth)
7.) Genetically engineered plants that are suitable for growing on the moon.
8.) Need Water Resources/Water Materials
9.) Address how to cultivate a on-going food source for colony civilization beyond growing carrots and tomatoes in the moon soil
10.) Moon dust be problematic
11.)humans need way of adapting to a low level of the moons surface gravity.
Challenges to colonizing mars:
1.) Travel distance 33.9 million miles away 15 to 18 months of space travel
2.) Magnetic field built
3.) Atmosphere built for protection
4.)Need water resources/water materials
5.) Increase the planets overall temperatures 7 degrees celsisus. And 0 degrees celsius/-32 degrees fahrenheit to have water begin melting underground at both its poles
6.) Address the problem growing plants in mars toxic soil/regolith
7.)Increase the planets overall oxygen levels.
As you can see overcoming the moons terraforming challeneges outweighs our mars challenges by a handfull or so. Im sure the progress or problems of both worlds would be directly influencial on space exploration to other moons or planetary colonizations.
I hope we do set sights going "back" to the moon. Though I have my doubts we ever did, I hope we really do.
We haven't been there yet....
The Astronauts who landed on the moon were actually called “MEN”. The last SATURN V Rocket, (Apollo17), Not the Atlas Rocket, was launched to the Moon in 1972. Two of the crew of Apollo 17, who walked on the Moon, are known as the last “Men on the Moon”, back in 1972!