Why The US is Struggling to Return to the Moon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Get Nebula for 50% off with my link: go.nebula.tv/r...
Watch this video ad free on Nebula: nebula.tv/vide...
Links to everything I do:
beacons.ai/bri...
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/co...
Credits:
Producer/Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Head of Production: Mike Ridolfi
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Writer/Research: Josi Gold
Animator: Stijn Orlans
Sound and Production Coordinator: Graham Haerther
Sound: Donovan Bullen
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster
Head of Moral: Shia LeWoof
Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.c...
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Abdullah Alotaibi, Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung
Apollo 17 was 1972 not 1952
Good thing we got that straightened out.
Came here to point out the same mistake
Rough start to the video
Unless he knows something we don’t 🤔
@@denverbraughler3948 he probably just misspoke. just because someone said the wrong year doesn't mean they are clueless
"We know where every boulder is on the moon"- $100,000,000 lander trips over a boulder.
Moon alien prank probably
we know where every big boulder 😔
@@SleepyHarryZzzyeah yeah alright sceptic.
I bet you’re Republican.
@@tylabyla define big
I think, updating that map, because of meteors or asteroids might be important, if you wanna keep it accurate.
We just need to use 4 kb of RAM again
we're sorry no maericans can count to 4 are left
Just go back to KISS Keep It Simple Stupid 😂
Except for MrBeast who can count to 100,000!
But yeah, some republicans are thick af. Istg.
Had one bragging to me all day about all the poor animals he shot because apparently that is very masculine... 🤦🏻
@@chronosschironYeah I don't know many maericans
@@jimmymetal713 oh its code for your moma
This time it should be easier with Hollywood's CGI technology being so advanced.
How did they do this twice then in 1969, 1971 and 1972?
@@ekirasche6284 least obvious ragebait:
I love how at about 11:30 you see the "emergency exit- do not block" sign being blocked by some big ass cart.
BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour
CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing
DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon
Safety suggestion
ok OSHA
The door is some distance behind the object in the foreground. There's plenty of room to open it.
OSHA WHO?
Many KSP players can attest to how difficult it is to land on a foreign celestial object.
And KSP makes it 1000x easier than it it is irl
Facts
It's very easy to land, but my tank of fuel is empty once Im there. it's just hardcore to send enough fuel to ever come back and get another orbit on Earth to then splash down, even with rendezvous and refuelling on Earth orbit, which is already a challenge in itself
Funny, but the older I get, and I'm old now, the less I believe that the US went to the moon, especially given how they are behaving now. Just saying.
@@Etrehumain123now think how hard it would be if everything was 8 times bigger(?) ,this is ksp RP1
People don't understand, neil Armstrong was one of the best the best pilots on earth. A test pilot that was used to snap decisions to correct things he didn't fully understand. He deserves more credit than he get. He didn't just ride there and say something
yeah and the ai of today is just not as good no where near as good sadly😭😭
You are 1000% correct. Armstrong piloted numerous flying machines that did their utmost to kill him and he always lived another day to tell the story and help engineer a solution to the machine's flaws. Neil was a brilliant, quiet, humble man which belied his nerves of steel and absolute raw courage.
Armstrong was famous for keeping his cool in the most nerve wracking and desperate situations.
Except he didn't go to the moon.
@@1.4billion65 Every piece of evidence says that he did. You are an anonymous troll on the internet bringing no credible evidence to support your claims nor to counter all of the evidence that supports Armstrong. Weigh those two facts together and I’m going to give Armstrong credit and you a minus.
0:17 me in Spaceflight simulator
Lol
I think you meant Apollo 52 in 1917, it's easy to mix those numbers I know
😸
😂
BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour
CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing
DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon
bomboclat💀
@@BrunoDias1234 bro, could you say that one more time? I didn't catch that.
Car companies: Autonomous vehicles are safe now
NASA scientists: Actually, even avoiding a static rock is hard
they simply do not breed them like they used to sadly😭😭
@@raven4k998 Systematic Marxist/Socialist indoctrination assure men can NOT be like the men who created Apollo. Only a tiny number of women were part of that and today MOST women would not have what it takes - just as MOST MEN do not either.
Central to STEM are the abilities to:
• Argue and criticize - central to ALL science and engineering
• Allowed to make mistakes - perfection in one step of anything is IMPOSSIBLE unless you never actually push the envelope
• Allow time to conform to what nature demands
Musk has been saying his cars will be fully autonomous next year - every year for the past ten years. Still only at level 2. He also said he’d land people on Mars in 2024 after landing on the moon. Now he says he’ll land people on Mars this century.
Only Tesla says that and Tesla is full of bs. Same for Musk.
How many crash’s has Tesla had while training their AI to drive during development? NASA doesn’t send up a lot of craft and crash them to train them
NASA: Can we have money to go back to the moon please
Congress: best I can do is $3
BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour
CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing
DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon
And we’re giving $2.99 of it to Boeing.
Also congress "best i can do is launder another 72billion to Ukraine"
Buddy, if Russia re-annexes all the former soviet states, you'll have a much bigger problem on your hands than sending old military gear to Ukraine
@@Mike-jv8bvno way you actually believe that ahahahahahha absolute moron
If you’ve never been somewhere, how can you return to it?
The USA has done 11 successful landings on the moon already. That’s why it’s called a return.
@Hobbes746
You’re having a giraffe.
@@ThomasReed-c1w No, being serious. We have loads of evidence that prove the Surveyor and Apollo landings are real, and no evidence at all that any of those landings were faked. So why would I believe they were faked?
There were 5 successful landings of the Surveyor. There were 9 manned flights to the moon. They landed there 6 times and 12 people have walked on the moon. They have collected over 380 kilos of moon rocks that have been studied by scientists worldwide.
These are irrefutable scientific facts. Your gut feelings don't count.
Bingo
China: we are launching our new Lunar prog-
US: Alright boys, its time to explore freedom
this was my comment: *Why The US is Struggling to Return to the Moon ?* cos its an ex-empire that is totally given over to making billionaires richer - not achieving things
China will likely get there before the US
Hilarious and original. Never heard that one before.
@@migaloo364 MERICUHHHHH
@@migaloo364woah guys the sarcastic comedy police is here
Landers have freedom. Free the landers from the CCP - lol
They face the same difficulties that we face in Kerbal space program
What a small world
The tall lander VS wide lander brought back so many memories.
ksp is more or less a training program
Damn, over 20% of this video is advertising
Luckily it's at the end, so we don't have to watch it if we don't want to..
HOWEVER a lot more people will watch a 16 minute video vs a 20 minute video.
An insane percentage of people won't even click on a 20min video but will a 16min video. I feel bad for them. However, that's something that needs to be considered.
@@jonslg240 Sounds like you'd be a willing participant in collective movements to get YT to pay a far, far.... *FAR* greater share of advertising revenue so that they aren't inclined to sell out so hard to sponsors.
Simple: because back then, the US had a reason to go. A stupid, childish reason, but a reason nonetheless. And also back then there was a greater willingness to take risks. People died but the program continued.
That same kind of reason is starting to materialise now (China) but the pressure is not really on yet. That may or may not happen, but when it does, a new space race may erupt. Better than a war, or course.
they also had a fuckton of money 🤣
3 decade engineer, a large swath of the interviews I’ve seen with the ones working on these projects aren’t going to get us there, this one included. Broadly, the quality of engineers has really dropped off over the past 30 years.
You didn't watch the video. It's not because they are unwilling to take risks, it's because technical problems make the landing hard, they need a more reliable navigation system to guide the ship to not crash itself. It's a problem right now with unmanned ships, it's a catastrophy with manned ones.
Would you volunteer for a trip which had a 50% chance of you dying?
@@linecraftman3907 Yup, 2.5% of GDP for a decade, not far off from our current military spending! NASA now gets 0.2% of the federal budget and .001% of GDP and that's for everything they do.
@@c1ph3rpunk I mean, the hardware is already in testing, we have already sent missions recently, JPL have achieved much more ridiculous feats of engineering (look at the perseverance and curiosity skycranes, or JWST for example.
i sincerely doubt the quality of engineers has dropped.
How can you return to something you've never been to?
Intuitive Machines has not been to the moon before. Other companies and institutions in the US and elsewhere have.
Nobody cares about your gut feelings. Come up with scientifically proven evidence why no one ever landed on the moon or shut up.
the acting is very good though
@@nmtl5721 least obvious ragebait:
If you read the familiarization manuals Grumman provided to NASA, it's readily apparent that none of the CLIPS landers are as well engineered as the Lunar Module. For instance, each propellant valve on the LM could be independently isolated by another valve, thus precluding a loss of propellant scenario as occurred to the Astrobotic lander. I truly hope we emulate Grumman's systems engineering when it comes time for humans to return to the lunar surface, no matter their flag.
Except for Russia or Israel.
Look here commie lover , america will make its way back to the moon ,
also, in this lander they don't have redundancy for landing-camera as stated at 5:26 . I think NASA-contract is shaped in a way that contractor aren't worried about mission failure? at least not worried enough to justify installing backup for a camera that will end up working anyway.
Interesting observation. How much cost it would increase, if we take Grumman's approach?
@@xponen Or the engineers just aren't as talented as the ones who built the ships for the Apollo missions.
You have to keep in mind that both Astrobotic with 130 employees, and Intuitive Machines with 250+ employees, are *small companies,* despite the failure, it's great to see that small private companies are attempting to land on the Moon.
Private? You mean government funded. Don't get it confused kid this is an overbloated government funded fiasco pure and simple. NASA is a relic that needs to go away because even the crap of private organizations have a far superior safety record and can do things so so much cheaper. And faster.
This. The Apollo lunar module was developed by Grumman, an established defense contractor with tends of thousands of employees, not counting any NASA personnel and subcontractors that also assisted. The total inflation adjusted cost for the program was 21.65 billion dollars. In comparison these new landers are being built by absolutely tiny teams on shoestring budgets, and they are being asked to solve some really tricky problems that Grumman didn't have to consider on top.
@@isned2000 Yeah, like landing.
True, but it's also pretty idiotic to go there in the first place
@@isned2000tru dat
We must return. Monke was meant for da moon.
Moon apes unite!
We will return. Apes together strong.
TO THE MOON! 📈
The scientists asked chatGPT how to go to the moon, but it didn't know, so we have to wait for the next version and hope
Moonke
The deep dive and your chat with the head engineer for that moon lander was quite interesting from a systems engineering perspective.
This reminds me of the citizens of the late stages of Rome. They were dumbfounded as to who built their city. The coliseum, the aqueducts, the bridges, etc. They lost all the know-how and speculated that it must've been built by giants or by gods. Now most Americans believe that we never went to the moon as they believe it was never possible, not knowing that the industry, the people, the tools and know-how are all gone and dispersed because the whole thing lost its drive after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's why record are kept, I could be a great scientist and acomplish many thing but if I didn't keep record and pass the knowledge to my son, my grandsons might just think I was just a lucky conman.
To be fair, I don't think MOST Americans think that.
That said, the current intellectual state of America is thanks to Republicans spending decades defunding education and promoting conspiracy mindsets.
Besides, apparently the earth has been established to be flat by a majority vote in Congress.
However those records of "How I Did It" was for innovative and highly skilled craftsmen that just don't exist anymore. You don't see too many 17yos rebuilding carburators modern mechanics making parts on a shop table. A few but not nearly as many as in 1968...and most who are doing it are well past the mandatory retirement age.
Today's engineers wait for the computer simulation or the computer diagnosis before moving. So those notes are as interesting as seeing calligraphy
Well, there isn’t all that much left of “Made in America”.
We should remember that man landed on the moon, not a computer. The skill of two extremely skilled and trained humans improvised to land. Self driving cars have trouble seeing every parked truck so it is a big step to expect it to see a grey boulder on a grey surface. They will get there but it is no surprise that there are early issues.
Actually the landing was done by the AGC, the astronauts would only feed it with inputs.
I doubt any human could keep the machine level, manually controlling each 16 or so thrusters at a time.
The AGC has a fully automatic landing (P66 if I remember well), but no astronaut used it (they remained in "manual" mode, which means a joystick to tell the computer when to head to). Engineer's first design had no manual mode at all, but astronauts insisted for it, afaik.
And agree that the system would have been totally unable to spot boulders or anything, and humans were needed to direct the LM at a suitable location.
It's not that big of a leap in all honesty. The grey boulder on a grey surface doesn't matter when they are using LiDAR and other radar techniques. There are limitations to each radar type, which is why a combination of radar types will honestly make the computer able to judge a situation way better than we can with our eyes. Optical illusions are very real and it's not something that we can overcome. A computer can if it's given the right sensory system (we are stuck with our eyes). Computers are amazing and they will be able to get the job done. It's just not exactly easy to create the perfect code that takes everything into consideration. That's where the astronauts come in. They can make decisions when the parameters are too off for a computer to work. Computers can already land planes and they can also catch or land discarded boosters, the latter is something that no person will ever have the slightest chance of doing. It can definitely land a slow moving object on the moon if coded correctly. Technology has come a long way since we last were on the moon.
@ I partially agree but planes land based on various radio transmitters giving precision approaches on a known surface. These facilities don’t exist on the moon. Self driving cars have shown themselves to be less than perfect at spotting things that a human can easily. It’s not that I am saying they won’t get there, only that we seem to perhaps to be further off than it seems.
There were a bunch of unmanned soft landings on the Moon before Apollo 11. USSR's Luna 9 and 13, USA's Surveyor program. Presenting the "we used to land with humans before, landing with machines is harder now" is misguided.
There were successful autonomous lunar landers before the human landings. Check out the Soviet Luna missions and the American Surveyor missions
honestly after watching all these videos, i dont really get how we got to the moon in the first place? a review video would be great, less on the tech but more on the probabilities and the risk tolerance. all the ways in which risks were taken which are not acceptable now.
We didn’t
Give me a break with this horseshit
Hollywood basement.
That would be good. And would be a point of perspective why it seems going to the Moon is so much harder now despite technology advancing.
250 billion dollars is how. It was seen as a national and cultural priority, not as an experiment, and we used much, much more ressources to get there. Even then, it took multiple preliminary missions; there's a reason why it the first landing was the 11th Apollo mission.
You can’t struggle to get back to a place you’ve never been.
Intuitive Machines has never been to the moon before, and they were one dumb mistake away from a successful landing.
And this is why people think we didn't go to the moon
Its gonna take the average american another 60 years to truly start to consider that
there is a burger king on the moon
you never went there HAHA
the earths magnetic field wont protect you at the moon and one solar wind and its gg and nasa knew about this so they faked the landing lmao you dumbos
We never went to the moon.
A: we should use a scout robot to scout the landing area / make the landing area
B: We should just land it easy on a flat spot. Maybe have more than just a camera for depth perception lol.
There are already many areas that are flat enough that can be scouted from an orbiter.
We should build a comm network around the moon that bounces signals home
@Supercalifragilisticexpial-r2x yeah , but I'd like a rover to set a pad for us. Also set up things for a mission.
0:25 Intuitive machines was NOT landing with a visual guidance system.
That LIDAR system was mistakenly left disabled before launch. Instead, it was landing with an inertial guidance system that was calibrated in lunar orbit by RADAR from Earth. This left an error in both vertical velocity and horizontal velocity during touch down. The craft literally dragged the landing gear sideways against the surface after a hard collision.
How the hell did they forget the LiDAR 😂
Ummm yeah these guys probably should be fired.
@@PWNAGE703 they forgot to take off the safety cover before launch...
@@PWNAGE703 they had a lot to remember, OK?
I'm guessing "remove the LIDAR eye safety cover" was never included in a critical checklist. These lockouts should have a very conspicuous tag saying "remove before launch", and include a serial number. Maybe only the tag was removed, *_not the eye safety cover._*
Reaching the moon again isn’t a skill problem; it’s a will problem.
5:54 it knows where it is because it knows where it isn’t
Great reference 😅
I was hoping to see that in the comments.
Старая добрая шутка
MEANWHILE : "[Japan's Moon Sniper Jan 2024] achieved such precise landing on the moon, it would be the equivalent of shooting a Skin Cell from London (UK) to Cairo (Egypt), and having it land on a specific Grain of Rice"
And then even though it landed essentially upside down, It was able to get enough light to startup and correct itself.
And even though it was designed for 1 lunar day, it ended up working for Three.
still an unfair comparison since you're comparing a federal government agency (JAXA) to privately owned COMPANYS. The US equivalent (NASA) has car sized rovers on mars bro, don't kid yourself, American excellence is real in this case
@@TylerAyyy Suuuuuurrrreeeee.....
@@TylerAyyy Little harsh on the tone, but that's a fair point. Still an awesome feat of precision and good design on japan's part.
@@TylerAyyyand the US is a massive country by comparison... can't really call out the difference in scale in one direction but not the other
@@TylerAyyyThe comparison is more on how NASA is losing said excellence because of funding, while the japanese are getting better. NASA is being asked to be involved in dumb projects like Mars, which I'm sorry to say is a futile and fruitless effort, while the other is rapidly progressing on making a front to the moon, which is essentially a giant refueling station NASA should have been all over years ago. Excellence means nothing when the people deciding things are directly stagnating efforts because "it sounds cool." This country use to be pragmatic.
NASA: We can't get to the moon anymore.
Average US citizen: We lost the technology to land on the moon.
Its not the tech we lost, its the attitude. When the attitude is "i just can't fail" you add redundancy for every critical systems if anything, (a dust particle) causes something like a criticle navigation camera to fail, there is another that can be used. You also don't rely on just a single type of sensor for your navigation. These companies are trying to build very cheap (relatively speaking) and so they lack redundancy and reliability. NASA back in the Apallo day's really could not afford to loos astronauts either, so they made sure. But they also had a lot more Government support as well.
@@Krahazik OK, then send a robot or rover
It is not the technical or financial difficulties that have prevented a return to the Moon, it is that NASA has to be very careful not to perform any observations or experiments from the surface that would give away the fact that what we have been told so far does not match what theory predicts. Armstrong told us about "..truths protective layers".
@@Krahazik no It's because all of the successful moon landing experience an instructions we had in the past they decided to throw it out the window an try to come up with somethin else. Like really all they really had to do was not completely change everything which they did an because of that they didn't have any reference or comparison to. Add to the matter the paper pushers an you end up with mistakes every where an also delays.
We even sent a dune buggy up to expand their capabilities.
Now, the car haters would mandate mass transit only.
A better comparison of technology would probably be NASA's Surveyor program. It used a collection of analog computers/servo loops, a landing radar, a sophisticated radio telemetry system , and some remote control to land.
It also had a video camera, various experiments, a mechanical arm (depending on mission).
Five out of seven landed successfully in the 1966 to 1968 time frame.
Extensive mission reports, and system composition documents are on the web.
The big difference is that the Surveyors used blindly, using that radar only to measure altitude. IM-1 and other modern landers use terrain recognition so they can change the landing point autonomously of that point turns out to be unsuitable.
@@zounds010 I said it was a better comparison, meaning that a comparison of the landing ability between a modern autonomous lunar lander and an antique lander that had men it would not be as good a *comparison* (given the title/concept of the video) of technological ability as the Surveyor series spacecraft vs modern autonomous landing systems.
Aside from the computer between an astronaut's ears, there was not enough computing power available (probably not with all US government computers combined) to NASA at the time to do any kind of SLAM (or similar) in realtime.
If that's your criterion then there is no comparison (for years 1960-70 technology) at all.
@@zounds010 @zounds010 I said it was a better comparison, meaning that a comparison of the landing ability between a modern autonomous lunar lander and an antique lander that had men it would not be as good a *comparison* (given the title/concept of the video) of technological ability as the Surveyor series spacecraft vs modern autonomous landing systems.
Aside from the computer between an astronaut's ears, there was not enough computing power available (probably not with all US government computers combined) to NASA at the time to do any kind of SLAM (or similar) in realtime.
If that's your criterion then there is no comparison (for years 1960-70 technology) at all.
Return? Never been there.
😂😂😂
Of course they went to the moon!
With a 50% success rate of a safe landing today you know they could have easily done it in 1969, and back to earth again without a hitch. And those pristine high res film photos to prove it too. Space and Van Allen radiation probably wasn't near as strong back then as an airport x-ray scanner was on my old camera film.
Amazing how awesome we were. Russia ahead in space every step of the way and right at the very last we rip past them and land successfully on the moon and back again. And for some reason they quit right then and didn't take that step. Lucky us, we did it!
@@yr2235 Stanley Kubrick must be spinning in his grave !
With the American propensity to lie with a 'straight face' that we all know now, I have to agree with you! After the Iraq War lies that costs over a million Iraqi lives in 2003, I can never believe anything the Americans say again! Never ever!
@@bobchiggs It didn't all work perfectly. Out of 12 manned Apollo missions, there was one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1) and a mission failure (Apollo 13), that’s a terrible ratio. The landings of Apollos 11,14 & 16 were very nearly aborted because of computer and engine problems.
The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example, lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material.
A lot of the Soviets’ initial space successes such as the first woman, spacewalk and three-man crew were not as impressive as they appeared. In fact, they were rather a series of stunts that were often rushed, dangerous and underdeveloped in a desperate attempt to maintain a perceived leadership over the U.S.
The Russians were never able to get their version of the Saturn V super heavy-lift rocket to work and so were therefore unable to attain lunar orbit. The N1 started development in October 1965, almost four years after the Saturn V, during which it was massively underfunded and rushed. The project was badly derailed by the death of its chief designer Sergei Korolev in 1966 and adversely affected by interdepartmental rivalries.
Once Apollo 11 had returned from the Moon and Kennedy's goal had been achieved, cutbacks began and continued into the early 1970’s during a widescale retreat from technology projects due to competing demands e.g. Vietnam War, economic recession, and a grassroots Republican backlash against what was seen as an over-reaching of federal government into the nation’s affairs.
Cancelling Apollo 18 really was a major set back and then they sat on their laurels for over 50 years as the people who worked on the program aged out and died.
Chinese: planned 20-year long space program that wont be affected by budget issues, political climate, military overspending and dedication.
NASA: has a new budget and mission objectives every 4 years.
Who do you think is gonna win?
The only people to 'win' that game are the ones who get fat contracts, a golden goose that just keeps paying no matter how slow or delayed you are. I imagine there are some perks to the 'law makers' who pull the budget strings as well.
(looks at the random explosions and collapsing everything shown by channels exposing what is going on in China behind the propaganda) I think it will be those that China relies on stealing tech from in the first place. Their level of corruption siphoning money and cutting corners makes the U.S look spot-less of it.
China is a ticking time bomb
To be fair, in the original Space Race the democracy that got new management every 4 years won. I’d argue general political motivation is the deciding factor rather than the political system used. In the original Space Race the US government saw space expansion as a demonstration of American exceptionalism and a race to beat the communists, while the Soviet government saw space expansion as more of a military issue than anything else (seriously, Vostok was designed to double as an uncrewed spy satellite and the N1 had to be pitched to the Soviet military as a missile capable of carrying the Tsar Bomba). In the current space race the US government sees space expansion as a jobs program and a way for contractors to get rich by infesting NASA with pork and incompetence, while the Chinese government sees space expansion as an integral part of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”.
Won't be affected by political climate... like something happening to Taiwan?
Also, China does overspend on its military. It doesn't have nearly the margin of the US does to begin with, yet it's trying to ramp up everything to achieve regional dominance by 2027, hence why it's spending upwards of 1% of its GDP despite economic difficulties.
And build quality issues are not uncommon with infrastructure projects. I wouldn't expect perfection from their space program.
Great video, and I will follow you on Nebula!
Remember the toys, they weeble and they wobble but they dont fall down? Thats the shape they should make the probes. A spherical shell with an offset interior mass so that they dont have to worry about the tipping.
A gyroscope...?
After some research it may literally be called a 'weeble' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeble
It's what the Soviets did, and it worked.
Or just a spherical shell cage that has the lander inside which can point in any direction after touch down which wont worry if it hits a boulder or lands on a slope... come on Nasa engineers its not rocket science!! lol
@@simonscofield8825 Exactly what the Soviets did. KISS method
What changed? Congress won't give NASA an unlimited budget anymore :P
wich is a #shameforhumanity !
Spacex is here
@@MisterSpeaks They aren't going to the moon without Nasa paying for or another space agency paying for it. All the money commercial to be made is in launching payloads into earth orbit & Elon's personal obsession seems to be Mars not the moon, assuming its not just marketing BS.
Which has largely recreated what nasa has already done. With a focus on rich people tourism
and no cold war...
1:13 You know they are serious about their ESD safety when even the trash bin's are ESD safe.
You mean the drag chain on the chair?
BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour
CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing
DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon
People saying how we cant go to moon anymore like we did like with Apollo mission.
3 points you dont think about.
1) Space Race was the highest priority for the US after being left behind and embarrassed by the USSR.
2) NASA no longer prioritize getting things done as quickly as possible. They prioritize longevity which causes more issues than the Apollo program can ever dream of. Apollo program was a few days mission while current programs are meant to be months or years long. You think Apollo technology can last a month without issues? No. It is not even safe for that long.
3) US cut NASA’s budget by 90% after the space race. They already had most technologies built to go to the moon again but it was no longer feasible with the salary cut. So they prioritized other things instead which now leads us to space crafts being extremely cheap compared to before. Reusable now too! + Technology is way more reliable and intuitive with long life span. This is what NASA prioritize. Not going back for another few days or weeks.
Blabla you're just a parrot for the government. Loser
Bullsh1t excuses wake up
@ which part
NASA successfully landed 5 of 7 surveyor missions remotely on the moon between 1966 and 1968. Before a human piloted craft ever attempted to land. These mission answered question such as whether a lander would sink into the regolith, and the conditions astronauts would face on the surface, not to mention the auto approach programming they had worked out, a modified version of which would guide the Lunar Module and control its attitude all but the last few hundred feet.
Happy someone pointed this out. Surveyor spacecraft managed to land on three legs, used a single rocket motor which it jettisoned before soft landing using some low-energy thrusters, managed to carry everything including fuel and a camera on a frame the size of a Harley. It even survived the lunar night. How these new unmanned robotic spacecraft cannot match that level of performance I can't understand.
@@tperk People over-reliant on tech and little use of brains. The engineers and leadership of the 60s/70s were MENSA compared to their modern counterparts.
Do you know what happened to the ones that didn't? The real researchers know and it's very profound!
@ When you use terms like “real researchers” you reveal yourself to be a crank. Surveyor 2 had a mid-course correction failure and impacted the moon near Copernicus crater. And the surveyor 4 had a retrorocket explode while it was landing. Nothing profound. Just some lessons in how to harden spacecraft systems for deep space and wide temperature extremes. “Real researchers” are the folks who swallow hare brained fantasies they read about online.
@@tperk Thermo electric generators. They provided power and kept the internals warm. You cannot buy those things off the shelf. Not even if you have technology to make it to the Moon.
I'm surprised that there is no mention of ISRO or Chandrayaan-3
true
They simply don't want to include anything that shows India's superiority over them. But they don't mind mentioning China that they consider as a threat for them. Such hypocrisy!
Well, Artemis is more time consuming and both the private missions had less budget compared to Chandrayaan
@@techietisdead Bruh, what are you yapping about. First of all comparing Artemis and Chandrayaan is wrong. Artemis is more ambitious project than Chandrayaan, thus it will always be way more costly project.
NASA's Artemis program is estimated to cost $93 billion between 2012 and 2025.
Chandrayaan-1 cost = 52 million dollars.
Chandrayaan-2 cost = 141 million dollars (highest estimation)
Chandrayaan-3 cost = 75 million dollars.
The Artemis program is over $6 billion over budget. The program is also 6 years behind schedule.
@@AaryanLande-uf9ki Ye thats my point, you cant compare them hence Chandrayaan isnt mentioned
It cracks me up how NASA is doing "Early exploratory missions" to the moon 51 years after humans already landed on it.
All for a reason. Doing a lil research gives you a clearer view.
Tbf i can concede that a moon base is a whole different ballgame than just touching the moon and leaving, if people are gonna live there they should know what they'll be dealing with
Lol. The thing is usa never landed a man on moon in 1960s. But remember I'm a not a flat earther.
And i am a science guy and i do believe and know every bit of NASA mars misios and rovers. That's true one sided missions.
Nasa can reach and have visited all of these bodies through robots one sided missions multiple times but not in 1970s. But after 90s. Or 2000s. Mins this.
Let alone manned return eurn mission of moon , is still impossible till tade 12 12 2024 .
@@VanceItly we landed men on the moon 6 times fact. You don’t know what you’re talking about and you write like you just crawled out of cave.
Imagine being so oblivious to lose $120 million lander because of a rock... But they will damn make sure single mothers pay their taxes on time to pay for a new one 😂
This video doesn't address "why" at all. In the 1960's we were able to figure it out in a few years with nearly zero tech. 55 YEARS LATER "oooh it's so difficult".
Either:
a. We never went in the first place
b. We lost the technical ability to go and squandered the subsequent advances that should have made this so much easier
c. "Moon landing" is a grift nowadays for funding
There is no way we delivered a human payload 55 years ago yet now struggle to land a craft that is loaded with laser and digital technology that was only fiction when the human payload was delivered.
Yeah the whole autonomous cars crashing thing today proves to me that there is no way that Bertha Benz drove a car 100km in 1888.
No way would cars still crash if they’ve been around that long. And they are way, way, way, way cheaper to develop and drive than going to the freaking moon.
@@THEfonz-s5u those aren't even similar situations technically. In fact you reinforce my point: every single thing about automobiles is cheaper, safer, easier, more routine, more widespread, better tech, everything.
To correct your attempt at simile, it would be this: Bertha drove in 1888, and since then we have driven a couple dozen more times but still can't figure out how to parallel park.
Or how about: we did a heart transplant in 1967, and since then we have done a dozen more, but we do them rarely because the cost has exploded and we can't get the immunosuppressive drugs to work reliably.
Find me another industry or activity ANYWHERE that has regressed this much in 55 years. No matter the cause, it's shameful.
@ cars are commercial. And supposedly have made 100s of billions of journeys. And after over a 100 years are STILL crashing. You reinforce my point. Moon travel is in infancy. Moon travel has not been an ‘industry’ (it was and is largely supported by governments) in the commercial sense until very recently where there are murmurs. Again, it’s in infancy. Apollo was an outlier even as a feat, nevermind an ‘industry’. A bag of rocks and dust. An industry? It was not sellable and not scalable. It was a dead end at that time. That you would even begin to make comparisons is just stupid . A mad unrepeatable moment of massive spending and energy for what? To prove they did it. Name another activity? First trip to the bottom of the ocean (Challenger Deep) was 1960. No one went back there for 52 years. By 2019 more people had visited and walked on the moon than had visited Challenger Deep. In 2024 they couldn’t even get down to the Titanic without imploding. Another? Flying passengers across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound. They did it in a 1960s jet and now they destroyed it. Like they destroyed Saturn V. Both are obsolete. So now start rolling your BS….
@@nadavegan there is no WAY we delivered a human payload in 1888 when we have autonomous cars today that still crash. No matter the cause, it’s shameful.
@@THEfonz-s5u you are either too dense or too fanboi to have a clue. 55 years is not INFANCY. In tech it is 20 generations.
Surveyor landers not even mentioned when that's closer to what NASA is doing with CLPS than Apollo manned landings tbh, those don't exactly have a great success rate either at the start
Two reasons why US is struggling: 1 - sending money to Ukraine instead of funding NASA 2 - wants to send women to the moon instead of men; former are weaker and require more care to land safely
Or even the Lunokhod programme
Yes, the seven NASA Surveyor missions to land on the Moon were pure robotic landers with technology from 60 years ago and designed by JPL. Five out of the seven landed successfully. The CLPS missions are from smaller organizations, and the cost is lower after adjusting for inflation, but NASA had landing technology six decades ago.
Given the problems with the previous 'Ranger' series (which weren't even *trying* to soft land, and only the last three were successful), engineers were somewhat surprised that Surveyor 1...*did* work, first time out.
One way to assure that a lander doesn’t tip over is to make sure the pads for the landing legs are much further apart than the lander is tall.
I`m glad I`m not the only person that seems to have noticed that!
Or, you know, not hit rocks.
I think the short version basically is that apollo era landings were fairly naive, and for the most part selected targets that fit the available technology. Using ground tracking radar with a bunch of averaging and filtering you can treat the ground more or less as a flat surface as long as its not that far from flat.
Apollo 17 in 1952?? Do what??
BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour
CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing
DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon
Interesting to see you here, I was just watching your last video.
God bless.
@@BrunoDias1234literal bot 🤖
Low effort video.
ITs Appolo 3465 from 530 BC
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled
I wonder how much convincing it would take for you to accept that you have been fooled, then.
After watching this, it's a miracle everyone who went there came back
Yes, a MIRACLE lol...
How many people have died to get space exploration to this point of development?
And what a waste of time and money when some morons still think humans on the moon never happened and the earth is flat! 😮
@@multioptioned Some people think we didn't go 250k miles to the moon and land people on there, then return. But as for the flat earthers, those people are nutjobs lol!
No miracle, just good cinematography
@@multioptionednine during the us's original space program. None in space (us numbers only)
You want to tell me that they managed to land 4 ppl 50 years ago safely and returned them to earth, but now they cant land a tin object.
Yeah sure, no man walked on that moon.
Moon landings follow a pattern: the first time any organization does it, there’s a large chance the landing will fail. NASA’s first landing failed. The first landing of the USSR failed.
With practice, the organization improves and their chance of success improves. NASA: 3 out of 9 Ranger missions successful. Surveyor: 5 out of 7 missions successful. That paved the way for the Apollo missions.
Now it’s Intuitive Machines doing their first moon mission. They got close to a successful landing. they’ll do better next time.
12 people have walked on the moon. Your gut feelings don't count.
So clickbait title and thumbnail then? The answer to, "what changed?" is, "nothing."
What a waste of time.
Not sure why they can't just switch to some form of RADAR when dust occludes the cameras. It's a technology that's been mature since before the original moon landings and it would certainly work for this application with a lot less fuss.
IM-1 failed because they forgot to switch the altimeter on.
Money.
Never was any dust, no crater from the thrust or any dust on the landing pads.
@@Dale-v6o Of course there was no dust. The exhaust gas from the lander move at more than 1 km/s. The dust they pick up moves at high speed AWAY from the lander. Because the moon has no atmosphere, the dust doesn’t billow into clouds around the lander.
There’s no crater because the LM landed using only 1300 kg of thrust, which is spread out over an area of several m2. The force acting on the ground is enough to pick up small particles only. The lunar surface consists of a thin layer of dust on top of larger and larger, interlocking boulders. You need a lot more than 1300 kg of thrust to dislodge enough material to make a crater.
I love 11:40 sometimes the simple solutions are the best. No reason to overcomplicate something especially when you only need to tell that you landed once.
Also unrelated but the inner child just loves how much different machines talk to each other just to make sure one lander succeeds. Its an amazing extensive network that just makes me smile since it's so cool
To answer the thumbnail: Well Moon wind, what else?
SLAM is also what robotic vacuums with camera based navigation (like the Roomba) use to navigate your house.
Well, that's not reassuring xD
Explains why they bump into everything then
Gen Z Silicon valley robot rocket boys will do anything to avoid using Radar... accurate to within millimeter and can even do SAR imaging on approach.
yeah I was wondering the same, I believe that's what Chandrayaan 3 used for it's successful landing
I hope you have lots of hopes and dreams because they're the only thing that could power a radar set with the capabilities you describe on a lunar lander. I don't have the exact numbers and honestly I don't need to because even with the ballpark numbers, you'd need to increase the power source of the lander tenfold.
@@crazeelazee7524 You can get S, X, and K, band radars that use very little power but are more than capable of ranging and imaging (SAR) against the moon. Additionally you already have the RF equipment onboard acting as a link to the ground station.
More over, radars for applications like this don't need a lot of power. You're not trying to track every single droplet of water in the air. Additionally a 1% duty cycle 1 watt RMS pulsed radar is effectively 100 watts of absolutely SCREAMING RF energy.
lastly... They have the power to do image processing in real time, that fair bit of power.
Solar cells used on probes like that pull down about 100 to 300 watts per square meter. Those landers are not exactly small, they have the power budget.
@@crazeelazee7524 The Apollo LEM had both a three-beam Doppler radar velocity sensor and a radar altimeter. Granted it took a Saturn 5 full stack to get it there.
@@MattNolanCustom A radar altimeter and a SAR radar are not the same. A radar altimeter is as simple as it gets and you would need ~10-20 watts for it. A SAR radar would need, at the lower end, a couple kilowatts of energy.
Mind you, the Nova-C lander's (one of which tipped over) solar panels can output ~300 watts.
It's not complicated - Bill the engineer
BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour
CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing
DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon
- Bill Kerman
If we for the sake of the argument agrees that we were there 55 years or so, how can anyone explain why we haven´t been back in all those years?. They also seem to have all sorts of problems like spacesuits, rockets, landing vehicles ect ect.
Apollo was the largest, most expensive engineering project in history. The only way the US was willing to spend that much money was in the context of the Space Race, to regain the prestige they lost when the USSR launched the first satellite.
Once Apollo’s goal was achieved, the US government reduced NASA’s budget by 90%. That made further moon landings unaffordable beyond Apollo 17. Apollo 18-20 had to be cancelled despite most of the hardware being made already.
For the next few decades, NASA’s human spaceflight budget was consumed by the Shuttle and ISS, leaving no financial room for manned lunar missions.
For Artemis, NASA wasn’t given any extra budget: only the money that became available when the Shuttle program ended could be used for Artemis. That’s about 1/25 of the Apollo annual budget.
Moon missions are still complicated, expensive project. The result of running a moon mission on 1/25 of Apollo’s budget is that everything takes longer. That’s where a lot of the problems come from. The remainder is caused by the fact that Artemis is a lot more ambitious than Apollo: Artemis missions will spend far more time on the moon, with larger crews than any Apollo missions. This creates new problems. For example, the Apollo space suits were only usable for one mission, up to 3 days on the lunar surface. Artemis suits have to be reusable for several missions that spend a month each on the lunar surface, so they have to be far more resilient than the Apollo design.
The costs of past spaceflights roughly worked out to be around $1B per person NASA sent into space (everywhere, ISS, test flights, moon landings) - the US government was not funding any more than was absolutley necessary.
They put fluoride in the water and removed nutrition from our food and so people are around 14% more dumb today than they were back in the sixties.
Since when did americans care abt how much it cost 😂 you funnel billions of $$$ to wars!!
But hey! If Americans says they have been to the moon, we shant question almighty America
@@bitemebudha8571 Yes, Americans do care about cost. See the annual discussions about the US Federal budget and the debt ceiling, for instance.
We know the Apollo missions landed on the moon not just because the Americans say so. We have evidence from around the world that confirms this.
I prefer the approach they took on that mars rober... just put it inside a giant inflatable ball and let it roll till it lands, it's just more fun
I don't think the moon has enough gravity to hold it down like Mars does.
@@LordReginaldMeowmont The moon has one sixth of the gravity of the Earth.
That's honestly not a terrible idea, but IDK how well that would work in a vacuum.
@Everyonethathascommentedsofar That just makes it even more fun 🙃
BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour
CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing
DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon
Why do they not use radar altimetry?
Right! I’m sitting here going you guys remember radar don’t you. Way too much focus on cameras
Probably cost. If you can do it with cameras you save the money/weight of the radar.
Yeah, Apollo's LM featured multiple radar altimeters. Perhaps such assemblies are too heavy or power hungry?
Radar is cheap enough. I think the problem is that it does not see sideways motion and cannot be used to find a good landing spot.
@@richardbloemenkamp8532I agree with this, I think LIDAR would be the only reasonable replacement for cameras, but there are a whole host of issues with that. Cameras are cheap, light, and tiny. If you can make them work then they are a great solution in this case.
We’re struggling because the first time we actually landed on a sound stage
Nope. We sent to the moon.
No sunlight on a sound stage.
Land on the moon, that’ll be a first
More like 31st.
United States: 6 unmanned landings.
United States: 6 manned landings.
Soviet Union/Russia: 8 unmanned landings
China: 3 unmanned landings
India: 1 unmanned landing
Japan: 1 partially successful unmanned landing
European Space Agency (ESA): 1 unmanned landing
Israel: 1 unmanned landing
United Arab Emirates: 1 unmanned landing
Luxembourg: 1 unmanned landing
South Korea: 1 unmanned landing
Mexico: 1 unmanned landing
Pakistan: 1 unmanned landing
"NASA's budget is too big" 14:19 they're literally still having to use Windows XP 😂
$1 = 1 cent for space exploration, 99 cents in the back pockets of politicians and corporations.
@@MattyEngland Not even. It's like the halfth of a penny.
I think they might use that for compatibility reasons. There's very specialized software that communicates on a specific type of connectors that don't have support on newer operating systems/hardware.
@@MattyEngland $1 spent on exploration isn't a $1 launched into space, it's paid to companies and people.
Thats a chunky laptop. I imagine thats really old footage.
After almost 60 years, it is still incredible the level of commitment on a Societal level, that the US had in the 1960s in order to get to the moon, and the extraordinary bravery and skill of the astronauts to actually land on the moon....
At that time, people believed in science, not antivax, chemtrails or other stupidities, they weren't fed with lies and the Republicans didn't bet on making the population dumber by underfunding education.
US landed on the moon by Hollywood
If you believe that, then Santa Claus is real for you!
It was filmed in a studio, they just took a long flight
@@tlsvd5842thank you for your comment😂😂😂
1969-the Moonlander lands beautifully on the moon. 2024-it fell over!. Those olden day folks weren’t so dumb after all.
plus they didn't even cancel their horizontal velocity before trying to land... they did it all in one maneuver! truly unbelievable...
And Lunokhod 1, 1970 an 11-month remote control mission.
@@prasakmanitou4925 very true and an excellent reference sir!
Yeah man, those Nazi scientists
And it was accomplished with virtually zero diversity! Just saying. The 800 pound gorilla in the room: back pre 1970 NASA hired the best. Period. And, NASA tapped Von Braun and dozens of former Nazi scientists in the late 50’s. They were the fathers of the Apollo program.
to answer your question. It's because of lack of technology...
More of a lack of experience.
oh yes a other moon landing theoriest you have a lack of knowledge 💀💀💀💀
Most people don't understand the difference between a proof of concept and an optimized final product. It's why there is an assumption of ineptitude regarding current attempts, or of impossibility regarding the first attempt.
The proof of concept is the cover all bases, do what you have to to make it work, one off attempts.
It is prohibitively expensive and over engineered.
After proof-of-concept, you know that it is possible and now have to determine how to repeat the result with what is basically a minimum viable product. What are the fewest components required? What is the most efficient form factor that will reproduce the results achieved by the proof-of-concept? Are there other options that solve existing issues in a better way?
Taking away parts and adjusting the form factor of the thing you know works is inherently going to have failures. But after the iteration process you are left with something that does the job much better, and cheaper, than the initial attempts.
Why can't a relatively small company reproduce the results accomplished by an entire country?
Kind of answers itself doesn't it?
@@blackoak4978 Is that you Kamala? What ?
@@blackoak4978 NASA tell us they went to the moon, first attempt, no problem. What's yours? Don't you believe their lies either?
@@deanhall6045 First off, it wasn't the first attempt. They had many fly bys to test their systems (as currently demonstrated with Artemis). Secondly, the landing area was much larger and there were people on board.
Right now, we are trying to land in a small area without human interference. It's not exactly easy, especially when things WILL inevitably break on launch or in the extremes of space.
@troybaxter Save it for some gullible fool who believes this trash. Inevitably, things break, unless your telling lies. You said it mate.
Ik but the thing is nowadays our tech is so much better it’s “astronomical” 😂
One other reason Apollo 11 landed safety was that Neil saw bunch of boulders were the lander going to land. So he took over and landed safely. Will the unmanned probe too the same if incounter obstacles? Remember that the moon is not flat or smooth.
its supposed to do that yes
Are you being serious? NASA had 2 astronauts Marooned 250 miles away and had together someone else to rescue them. But a liar tells you he steered a lunar module on the moon and you believe it? Wow.
All the Chinese missions to the Moon are unmanned and they are successful.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 true. Unmanned because they know the truth. Cheers.
They need to use AI to land - Armstrong Intelligence
Because, Doing a moon landing for first time is always harder, keep pushing USA 💪
It's amazing how people cling to their most cherished beliefs and the Apollo fan boys are no exception.
There is a ton of evidence that proves the Apollo landings are real. All the deniers ever present as counterargument is nonsense and hot air. 50 years, and not a single valid argument, much less any evidence at all that the landings were faked.
The Surveyor program, in the 60s, landed 5 probes on the moon for a total of $462 million. The program included a total of 12 launches.
With 7 of them being landing attempts.5 landed and 2 crashed. The cost is 4 billion today if you adjust for inflation.
@@linecraftman3907I wouldn’t downplay the fact that NASA managed to soft land remotely 5/7 times without microchips and other modern tech and without any previous experience. It was honestly a tremendous achievement. The soviets were doing just airbag assisted “soft” landings at the time (although admittedly they did “soft” land first as well as many other firsts when it comes to lunar exploration). Yes, price was high when adjusted for inflation, but 60s space stuff was all around very expensive.
What happened to the ones that didn't make it?🤔🤯
@@linecraftman3907 true, but when accounting for inflation we should also account for the fact that now we should have 60+ years of knowledge, modern machining tools, material science, and CAD/simulation tools they could have only dreamed of in the '60s.
Resolution down to 100 meters leaves a big ass rock invisible.
Especially compared to the size of the lander. Much of the commentary on this video made no sense.
You know there is a conspiracy of some kind about the topic when UA-cam has to attach a Wikipedia article in the description...
It's there in case you read comments you aren't supposed to.
@@keepkalm Hard-working people in Moscow are putting in long hours to write those comments, it's what has paid their bills since 2018.
Critical thinking unfortunately requires capacity that most people don't have.
@@VVayVVard"everyone I dont like is a Russian agent", are you a Hillary Clinton alt account, or do you work for the CIA?
They had the same bullshit messages about the vax. Wish I had of questioned it instead of getting myopericarditis
Yes it is the most profound one when you know.💯❤
My god, this will feed the "The Moon landing was fake".... FFS NASA. you had 1 Job
The job was Intuitive Machines’, not NASA’s.
It’s like farmer strength, against strength training. We may have all the advanced tools and supplements, but the farmer is hands on and over time has strengthened his tendons, muscle sinew, his grit and resolve.
"Laughs in Kubrick"
A wonderful analogy.
Return? You’re funny.
Only a reality denier could ignore the many landings the USA has made on the moon.
You're ignorant, that's what's funny.
Not very bright. Humanity doesn’t require your kind
The moon would make an interesting refueling station but the real money is in the asteroid belt out past mars. First dude to bring one of those babies home gets to retire for a hundred generations
If life has taught me anything, it's that wealth tends to disappear as quickly as it appears. I wouldn't be surprised if his grandkids or great-grandkids were broke, as implausible as it seems from bringing back the first "new" source of minerals ever.
I don't know about that. The thing with finding a whole bunch of a new resource is that it crashes the price of said resource
Naw. First dude to do it crashes the metals market and causes a financial upset lie the world has never seen
Almost all wealth dissipates within 3 generations
BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour
CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing
DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon
My father in law was the project manager for the Apollo Command Module Flight Simulator. He passed on in 2015. He was a very interesting guy. He said that the only thing that got us to the Moon was funding, which in the early years was virtually unlimited. He also said that the reason we stopped going to the Moon was the loss of funding. In 1965 NASA received a budget $5.25 billion, or almost $60 billion when adjusted for inflation. That compares to a budget of about $25 billion per year today. As part of that, NASA is funding the ISS, the SLS, the Commerical Space Program, the space telescopes and so much more. Is there any question as to why it is so hard to get back to the Moon. If the US wants to go back to the Moon, then congress needs to give the funds to do so. In the 1970's, when NASA started firing all those young engineers that took us to the Moon, they were dumbfounded. They thought that first we were going to the Moon and then onto Mars! Their hearts were broken!
... Is that supposed to be a Joke? The US spends 60 billion every other week on Ukraine or Israel or some MIC item! You're truly ignorant of that reality?
No, essentially, you've made the case for deniers. The US invented a fiction and once it was done (camouflaging a bunch of shit in the late 60s and early 70s) said achieved the greatest thing man could ever do... so we'll stop.
First time that behavior was ever exhibited by a human... really?
@@BwanaFinklestein So not only do you infer that the moon landings have for 50+ years fooled all of the worlds experts in comms, technology, geology, physics, audio, kinematics, VFX, photography, film, topography, lighting, space science, computing, mathematics, rocket science, radar, meteorology, radio biology, history, navigation, astronomy, et cetera, et cetera …
… but you believe that you are better qualified than all of those people to differently evaluate the evidence and come up with a ‘provable’ conclusion that they were all wrong?
I can’t wait to see your mountain of credible counter-evidence. So far all I see from you clowns is the Dunning-Kruger effect and a mountain of attention-seeking.
@@BwanaFinklestein Reality is that wars cannot be compared to discretionary spending on science projects.
In the 1960s, the US made warlike funding available for Apollo in the context of the Space Race: they wanted to prove the USA and its democratic system was technologically superior to the USSR and communism. Once the goal of Apollo was achieved (beating the Russians to the moon), the government was no longer willing to keep funding NASA at that level, so they reduced NASA’s budget by 90%.
Delusions of grandeur
I hope we can go to the moon commercially in my lifetime.
Best case scenario is like 1 million. I would volunteer to work for free. 6 month mission.. It will be like Antartica, they will want the kind of people that know how to do a lot of different stuff.
What do you want up there ? Kick dust ?
Incoming in the 2030s
@@ZoonCrypticon The average person has no use for being on the moon. Militarily though, the moon is a sort of "high ground".
Once you see this you start to understand that it isn't a coincidence the only new rocket engine (the SRB) used with SLS is capable of being used as an ICBM on it's own. A lot of space exploration is just a way to make tools used for war.
Funny, but the older I get, and I'm old now, the less I believe that the US went to the moon, especially given how they are behaving now. Just saying.
Because risk tolerance and utility goals are much higher now. It was proven that traviling and landing is possible.
Not true, risk tolerance without humans inside is much lower. Weight is much lower too so again, not true.
Why would they be trying to discover how to make an airplane flight instead of using what you already know, you base your new tech on already known tech.
@@gordilloedwin That's the problem. NASA doesn't create anything new, and doesn't innovate. They have zero actual scientific experience. They just have people who take things others have invented and slap them together, then try to make them work together. It costs more and more money, and since none of them actually understand what's going on, they can't deal with errors and incompatibilities. That's why their projects are all massively over budget, incredibly late, and obsoleted by SpaceX. Because SpaceX actually has people focused on the goal, instead of just focused on getting more money from Congress each year.
@@Skyblade12 Not true, SpaceX is the scapegoat for NASA. Apollo 14 mission report clearly states traslunar trajectory injection took place right at hearth of the Van Allen belts, with persons inside and it poses no problem, yet here we are 60 years later and have yet to achieve what Apollo claims to have achieved with primitive computers (for today standards 0 processing power).
SpaceX is nearly bankrupt due to the lack of achievements. They can do today what NASA has been doing for the past 20 years
What do you mean "return"?
return
/rɪˈtəːn/
noun
1.
an act of coming or going back to a place or activity.
So landing on the moon is hard. But that doesn't explain why we were able to do it over 50 years ago, yet we can't do it now
Back in the 1960s NASA spent $300 billion on Apollo. That’s how hard moon landings are.
IM-1 failed because they made a basic mistake. Their design was sound, but they skipped a step during the preflight check which meant the altimeter on IM-1 didn’t work.
The reason is that you are not very intelligent.
0:38 It's not IM-2, but IM-1. IM-2 is only going to be launched in January 2025.
Real Engineering has so many mistakes in this video, it's not good
@JamesQuintero18 unfortunately it's not the first time, either. Given the breadth and speed at which they generate videos on topics, they're full of errors and will repeat common falsehoods. It's pop science, fine for entertainment, but people are going to base opinions on the errors and not realize it.
BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour
CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing
DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon
@@FarrelClement Agreed. And he doesnt even try and hide his bias anymore. Anyone who will give him any information he makes out to be the golden child. Utter lack of critical evaluation or thinking.
I was going to say this but then saw this comment, don't want to be a parrot, glad to see I'm not crazy and did in fact hear that mistake correctly.
Would be cool to see china and us take a break from the bickering and try to cooperate on this initiative.
It's US congress that stay on the way, and if you didn't know despite all the sanctions on Russia most equiment going to outer, need to be tested in Russia.
Yeah same with the Space Station. China are just gonna copy US anyway, may as well work with them
问题是西方殖民者是不可能放弃他的殖民主义的。
The US has systematically been blocking all cooperations with China since 10 years ago, it's a policy. They blocked China from going to the ISS, so China built their own.
Also, India has a successful mission on the Moon.
It's amazing that Technology 60 years ago was so more advanced then today. 😅
Yes. Where is my supersonic airliner? I could book to go on Concorde in the 1970s and fly from London to New York in just over three hours. Now there is no such thing. I have to book a slow airliner and it takes over 7 HOURS!!!!
And why is the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird holding the official Air Speed Record for a crewed airbreathing jet engine aircraft? It was built before Apollo 11.
The 1950s-1970s was a golden age of aerospace technology. Tech bros can’t come close.
Don't forget those Rovers they Road around in also!😊
1960s technology is not more advanced than today’s tech. In the 1960s, NASA did 7 unmanned landings on the moon, 2 of which failed. In 2024, Intuitive Machines did their first landing on the moon (also their first spacecraft), with a spacecraft that unlike Surveyor, could observe the terrain and avoid obstacles. Due to a dumb mistake (leaving the main altimeter disabled), their landing was hard enough to break the landing legs.
@@parttimepreppers9907Cars have been driven since the 1800s. You seem to be comprehension-challenged.
I don’t understand how we’ve both improved and regressed in technology as they claim the original technology is lost. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but something certainly doesn’t add up.
The original technology is “lost” only in the sense that we don’t have production lines for the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft any more. All of the knowledge built during Apollo is still available, much of it in public archives.
What caused the Intuitive Machines 1 mission to fail was a simple, dumb mistake.
Once again I can answer some questions if so. My group works on the LAMP instrument from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) as well as the MMS mission (the 4 spacecraft for magnetic field that use GPS, mentioned at 14:44).
I know nothing about the MMS, but I have a question. What is the most fascinating/interesting/new thing that you have learnt about the earth's magnetic field because of this mission/satellite?
@@fizzy1724 I don't do the science aspect. I do more of the data processing and visualization. But I know that there's a couple things that we've learned from MMS about magnetic re-connection. We learned that it's much faster and smaller scale than we thought. It gives us more knowledge of how electrons travel through space and interact with magnetic fields, kinda like learning more about how gravity works.
@@umer936 that's really cool, thanks!
NASA budget in 1969: 10% of GDP
Where are you getting your data? I see (from the Historical NASA Budget Data - The Planetary Society) :
($millions)
1969 = $4,370 which was. 2.31% of US spending
2024 = $27,185 which was 0.36% of US spending
@@THEfonz-s5u I think he was joking
@@AgnosticThinker : NASA budget went up to 4% of Federal Budget during Apollo ear (is now less than 5%).
it's not like they're *just* trying to repeat what they did in the 70s, they're going back in a much different way, learning new things and innovating more than is visible from the outside while doing so
They're innovating very little. They're mostly taking technologies that others developed and tacking them onto their over budget project so that they can request more money the next time Congress meets. NASA hasn't innovated anything in decades. They're just a corrupt, wasteful bureaucracy. SpaceX has made vastly more progress for far less cost in much less time.
Waisting money and faking another moon landing probably that is the part from the inside you won't see
10 years of research, billions in cost, thousands of scientists, then, " oh shit! We hit a rock!" Back to the beginning.
I don’t think that thousands of scientists work for Intuitive Machines. Do you? Also, you don’t need to be a scientist to learn that some idiot left the safety on the primary landing/nav instrument before launch. Why did you fail to learn this tiny but crucial detail?
EDIT, oh shit, you lied also. Back to the beginning:
“Contract: In 2019, NASA awarded Intuitive Machines a $77 million contract to design, build, and land the spacecraft.
Development: The company's software development team had five years to build the code needed to communicate with, navigate, control, and fly the vehicle. “
@ My comment was exaggerated to point out that a lunar rock was all it took to destroy our efforts.
@@briandriver301 A dumb mistake by Intuitive Machines is what destroyed their efforts. They forgot to switch the altimeter out of safe mode during the preflight check.
We never went. It was easier to lie back then.
We did go, as proven by a mountain of evidence.
What changed? They couldn’t fake it this time
didn’t fake it the last time.
Yeah, that's it. Get educated.
When you’re landing on the moon and with rocks 20-30m that could bring you undone; 100m resolution doesn’t sound that impressive.
Put some people in the cockpit.
you can go first
$1 million per kg to go to a place, to help others go to that place- which can't sustain life in any form- and we can't afford our own groceries and most people are 1-2 steps ahead of homelessness at any given time
Wait nebula just hiked its price from the previous 15 per year to 36 per year!?
so no redundancy on the cameras sad so sad even you and I have redundancy with a back up eye incase one fails🤣🤣
More than that. They're probably worried about that State Department money drying up lol.
@@KosmonautKong yeah I mean if Nasa could do it with lesser tech and they can't it shows how stupid they are to not be even trying to make it work they have the tech to automate the ships if communication is an issue program the ship to require the signal by rotating and repositioning the antenna to get better gain if they could do it in the 1960s moon mission why can't they do it now?
Welp, there’s no blank check due to geopolitics this time around, yet. I was lucky to be raised by an L.E.M. engineer, so my view is a bit skewed towards “ My dad did it, why can’t you guys?” point of view. But really it’s money and public willingness. And money.
It is insane how people completely can't fathom we stopped going because we stopped putting enough money into it, so now with far less money than before, decades loss of experienced engineers/scientists that actually worked on the problem meaning the new generation has to relearn all that, and the added challenge of completely new technologies makes it a bit difficult to kick things into gear again.
Never heard such copium. You do realise the Chinese have trillions of dollars in cash and gold reserves? If the Americans did it in the 1960's, then China would have been there 20 years ago.
That fact that it was a hoax gets more and more obvious with every passing year.
I wish I could pick your dad’s brain, and learn all he did, and all he learned. The Apollo program as a whole has been my first and foremost fascination since I was a kid. The LEM especially, given all the changes made with each mission. Let alone the abilities showcased on 13, and the revolutionary concept of things like no chair, tiny windows, the docking reticle. Just to name a few.
Money is printed or punched in
@@SufficingPit They get twenty five billion per year. Their projects are billions over budget, and years behind. They don't get results because they are just a worthless bureaucracy that only cares about getting more money from Congress each budgetary checkpoint. SpaceX has created far more innovation in the past five years than NASA has in the past thirty, and for a tenth of the cost. All NASA does it take things other people have designed and built, slap them on a rocket, and demand more money for more stuff.
We never went
Gut feelings don't count.
@ApolloKid1961 ok weirdo
@@jjayala Insulting someone without providing any evidence first, who do you think you are?
Even the Apollo 17 mission had problems and last minute corrections. It could have gone really wrong at multiple intervals and almost did at least a couple of times. Even with modern tech its really hit or miss from launch to landing