funny they have AI narrate videos now, but cant go back to the moon because "it's too expensive" even though they spend way more on funding wars in ukraine and Israel
@@pasonveronica2370 . . if you can show up the first time without being caught spreading petrified wood afterward as the genuine article . . Interesting that recent returns from the Chinese unmanned lunar mission contained rocks having an entirely different ratio of minerals not remotely matching any of the material from Apollo missions . . No 60 minutes quest is forthcoming however -- let alone network news coverage in fake journalistic enterprise beyond celebrity gossip.
@@pasonveronica2370only reason we really need to go back is for the alleged abundance of helium-3 which would make a more efficient fuel for further exploration and possibly manned missions to the outer worlds.
@@randuthayne the bit, explanes the fir go at anything, it unknown, some times you nee to actuly build tooling needed to, to even make the machine you want to make, NASA it's self, big tool needed for task,, well doing, it second or third time? almost everything, from the first go? so costs sould go down, second third fourth, and soon on,
@@Samuelfish2k its bit like unrelated buildings collapsing on 9-11 full of computers and paperwork. Its a sad fact of life that Goverments lie to us every single day.
@@Samuelfish2k If you actually think they 'faked' it....I challenge you to go to Florida and look at the Saturn V they have laying on its' side and tell me it's not real. And often times there will be people there who worked on the Apollo project who will be happy to answer any questions you might have. But you won't do that because you'd rather live with your delusions than find out the truth. If you actually look...you can find blueprints, specifications, test procedures and results from every single part in that spacecraft....of which there are millions. All faked...of course. Once you see the mountain of documentation it should start to dawn on you that it was real.
When you bought a car in the 60's. Your owner manual gave instructions on how to adjust your valve lash. Today, your manual warns against drinking the antifreeze. Society has become "stupidy".
Read any current issue of Scientific American and compare them to articles written in the 1940’s: analytical, comprehensive, efficient is expressing complex concepts. Even the ads back then make you realize they were operating on a much higher plain and not treating the reader like a child with zero attention span. Although, that last part should be especially earmarked to the American news/entertainment infintalization complex.
$280B is too expensive? Wait a minute--we just apent $150B in Ukraine, and US spent $1T on the war in Afghanistan. If we put our asses in our pants, we would have enough to land moon 4 times the past decade.
We don't need Rockets to get to the moon or anywhere else in the solar system. Rockets are as obsolete as Dinosaurs. They were obsolete for manned exploration of space before they left the drawing boards. There is a better more efficient way that NASA has never even considered and never will, they are hopeless. It's up to Private Aerospace to get the job done, but not with big dumb dangerous inefficient Rockets.
@@GavinScrimgeour never been there. Never done that. Wake up and smell the coffee. Neil Armstrong was giving away fake moon rocks claiming they are from the moon. Also Google's most advanced AI detector says the photos are faked
Because so much hardware had been bought that they had to get some value out of it. In 1962, NASA contracted for fifteen Saturn V rockets to achieve the Apollo programme's goal of a manned landing on the Moon by 1970; at the time no one knew how many missions this would require. Since success was obtained in 1969 with the sixth Saturn V on Apollo 11, nine rockets remained available for a hoped-for total of ten landings. 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. On January 4, 1970, NASA announced the cancellation of Apollo 20 so that its Saturn V could be used to launch the Skylab space station, as budget restrictions had limited the Saturn V production to the original 15. Another lunar landing was lost in April 1970 when Apollo 13 had its in-flight failure, and the Fra Mauro landing site was reassigned to Apollo 14. Then on September 2, 1970, NASA announced the cancellation of Apollos 18 and 19, due to more budget cuts. Apollo 15 became the first of three extended J missions, and the landing site was moved to Hadley Rille, originally planned for Apollo 19. The Apollo 17 landing site was moved to the Taurus-Littrow Valley due to technical and geological considerations. Skylab was also pushed out to 1973:
Because it was a success so they were able to continue getting support. they had two more missions planed but after 8 trips (6 landings) they stopped getting the financial support they required. so they pivoted to Mars.
@@M.R.Baloch Why would they go in the 8 times? Two reasons; 1 is the cold war. Russia was trying to go as well and they were ahead of the US in the space race at the time. So it was a way of flexing muscles that we made it happen. The other simple reason is humans have always had a strong urge to explore. they did learn lots of information about the moon, the earth and the solar system.
@marksprague1280 The space race and the Cold War were both imaginary money pits. Because they were imaginary, the government was able to cut taxes for the rich. Space telescopes and landing on asteroids and comets, that's real science. You should be happy that we do any science.
That’s ludicrous that we couldn’t rebuild a Saturn V rocket today, I do not believe that for a second. The other idea that we lost some of the technology we used is also preposterous.
Not ar all ludicrous! I retired from an industry which peaked in the 80s. It was clear specialization and continuation of expertize were declining in various systems/techbolgy in the following decades
@@austinlumpkins1955we did not "lose the tech" we lost the INFRASTRUCTURE. We cannot build cathode ray tube televisions in the US either. Does that mean we "lost" the tech? No.
They were told to destroy the blueprints for the Saturn V. One NASA employee smuggled one of the blueprints home as a souvenir, but reported that a week or two later (I have forgotten the exact length of time he said) a couple of federal agents showed up at his front door and demanded he hand over his pilfered blueprint. He didn't know how they knew, but they figured it out somehow. It was old technology, not a national security risk. Why were they so anxious to destroy the plans? The obvious deduction: it was evidence. Evidence of something they wanted to hide forever. This is but one of many pieces of evidence that point to this conclusion. On the positive side, if it is this hard just to get to the moon, we probably don't have to worry about space aliens.
It's over 300 billion today, one Artemis mission costs about the same as one Apollo mission, a few billion dollars, the development of hardware for the whole program is much cheaper in comparison, Saturn V alone cost over 60 billion dollars to develop.
There isn't the will from the government or from the public as there was during the Cold War in 1961, which was a completely different time. Nobody really cares now. The government is more concerned in spending the money in the right congressional areas than going to the Moon. It was only done originally as a vanity project to get a new president out of trouble.
Have you looked into the science behind the moon landings? The communication and guidance technology definitely existed at the time, as well as the rocket technology. Both the US and Soviet Union could hit individual cities with many nuclear missles by the early 70s. They didn't even need pilots. How much harder would it really have been to hit the entire moon with additional pilot guidance? Let's not forget, either, that the Soviet Union did land probes on the moon, too. China, India and the Russia also have more recent photographs of the stuff we left behind on the moon. We have done much harder things in space than go to the moon. Yet the moon landing is what we doubt.
It's so difficult to go to the moon.....and they want to go to Mars??? Are you kidding???? No human being will ever go there. To the moon? Maybe as one of the last things mankind ever does in space.....
From the Earth to the Moon… The original idea of sending humans to the moon, travelling through the hazardous and life threatening void of uncharted space, came not from the minds of scientists, but from the visionary and futuristic minds of early science fiction writers. In, particular Jules Verne, who in 1867, published his ground breaking science fiction novel; ‘From the Earth to the Moon’, a stimulating and technically accurate story that included a crew of three sitting inside a moon lander positioned at the top of a three stage projectile, a successful Moon landing, a return to Earth, culminating in a parachute controlled ocean splash down, a rescue by ship and a triumphant homecoming to jubilant celebrations. An exciting science fiction story that proved to be a major boyhood inspiration for Wernher von Braun* who, years later, as a brilliant young WW2 German aerospace engineer and designer of the lethal NAZI V-2 rocket, dreamed of one day building giant rockets that would be capable of sending humans into space and on to the Moon. So, did a ‘sci fi’ inspired Wernher von Braun’s dream ever become a reality? Did a three stage, manned rocket that he designed as the director of NASA’s George C. Marshall Space Flight Centre, really fly three men into Earth orbit in 1969. And did those three men really cross the vast airless vacuum of space, travelling 238,855 miles ‘From the Earth to the Moon’ in a 'tin can' command module that had the miniscule computing power of a pocket calculator. And were two of those men really landed on the surface of the Moon dressed in flimsy zipped up 'beta cloth' space suits in an untested and ungainly Moon lander that looked like a hastily constructed film prop. And did they safely return to Earth in their command module, culminating in a parachute controlled ocean splash down, a rescue by ship, and a triumphant homecoming to jubilant celebrations? Or was it all just a spectacular piece of orchestrated theatre?
Yes, they did it. And there's no way they could have faked it convincingly. For instance, they were tracked all the way to the Moon and back, by the Soviets, the Australians, the Spanish, and even by some ham radio amateurs. It's physically impossible to fake the direction of tracking.
@@marlborough2016 The truth was out the whole time they did it. Anyone who's looked into it, and has at least junior high understanding of science and the history of technology, knows that. Anyone still questioning it today will very unlikely believe it with any new evidence. It will just be more FAKE!!! That's because it's not about the facts for at least 90% of Moon landing deniers, it's about the denial. I hope you're one of the 10%.
Oh ffs - how many times? Never ceases to amuse that those still insisting on parroting this are completely oblivious to the irony coming from gullible believers in dumb online conspiracy theory. At least you didn't wrongly attribute it to Mark Twain which is a first.
@@cyn7869 I'm not sensitive in the slightest. Simply that it's the same things mindlessly consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again. And to reiterate, the unintentional irony coming from a believer in dumb online conspiracy theory is as hilarious as it is tragic. Meanwhile, the fact that we inhabit a world in which opinion is valued over fact by individuals with absolutely zero knowledge of the subjects concerned is not only symptomatic of rampant populism on the internet, but quite frankly dangerous.
@@magdebates2697 bingo! You just know the whole thing with a sham. Especially when you hear NASA themselves tell us, we gotta figure out a way to get a guy through the van Allen belt. Like did they already do that? Or they'll say something like they have to figure out a way to protect the astronaut from radiation. But we already did that right? No I don't think they ever left low earth orbit.
@@davidgriffithsbjjcoach7207 Yeah. Tracked IT. But was IT manned? I don't think so. We're always learning. Today I learned Armstrong et al spent 21 hours on the lunar surface. That's a long time at around 127 Celsius / 240 ISH Fahrenheit. And flying the module must also of been difficult. So flight there. 21 hours on the surface. Flight back. What drugs were they on? Did they take turns sleeping and keeping watch and flying? Madness. It never happened.
@@Three_Random_Words Sure as hell drags it out ,,, He needs to speed it up 5X at least OR have two channels, one for those that maybe finished Junior School and another for those that read at least one of the many Volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica.
@@TagiukGold 🤔 Which part of "uncrewed" didn't you understand? Apollo 6 had no crew. It was an uncrewed or unmanned mission. The only Apollo mission in which "no one survived" was Apollo 1.
Now now trust in woke Bill Nelson, be the always dark side or not, money has been found to do the easier to do than fake (half century ago). MARS is less expensive!
According to this bogus lying society 9 black women were the computers so if that be true then this comment is valid. Again money ain’t stopping them. They lied and technology caught up with them.
Ukraine is a pressing issue of the future world our children inherit. Will it be a world based in logical rule of law, or a world in which it is ok to murder people just to steal their shit. Authoritarian governments are the default animal state but reflect all of mans failings whereas democracy represents a higher ideal which is very hard to hold together always in jeopardy of the tyranny of the many, or the tyranny of the few. Hold foremost in your heart the better angels of your human nature for the sake of our collective future, and be willing to defend them when they are under direct violent assault or we shall perish and enslaved, and miserable species.
That's arguable, I mean we are talking about one of the greatest achievements in history motivated by one of the greatest superpower schlong measuring contests in human existence.
There are many ways of destroying ourselves. The cost of preventing that from happening costs even more, and going back to the moon is one way of preventing our self destruction.
Boeing can't even get the holes to line up when assembling the airframe. Engineer whistle-blower warned using excessive force to line them up still leaves an unacceptable gap that leads to premature metal fatigue.
@@fabirkemarian6370 My theory is that is why they need to pay russia for a rocket ticket to ISS. Even ISS is not real. They are AFRAID of Boeing rocket exploding during first stage of launch.
55 years - and NOT EVEN ONE NEW CLEAR PHOTO of the 6 launching pads that are on the moon. 88 spacecraft flew over the moon - 0 photos. Where is the flag? Show me Babu. Not blurry stains. Clear hi-res.
@@Janky2912 No we haven't. Taking pictures of small objects on the Moon is about resolution. Hubble or any other telescope cannot achieve the resolution to see the objects left on the moon as their mirror diameters are far too small.
Not sure where you get your information from as there are many photos by many Moon Orbiting Satellites. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter got some real good photos.
When I was a kid I watched the Apollo missions. I thought with normal progression I'd be going to the moon or mars in my lifetime. Not going to happen. Human advancement just isn't a priority. Wars and getting cetain folks rich seem to be the priorities.
because what you watched is from hollywood. the actual work is a lot harder. and now it is a lot harder to fake it again because there are satellite from other country too.
What do you mean by human advancement? I remember the ISS being hyped as the stepping stone to human advancement or something like that and it's mostly a jobs program and nobody cares.
We realize that this accomplishment by your fellow man is very difficult for you to accept and comprehend, but yes, the SIX Apollo Moon Missions were a series of astonishing events in Modern History. Never underestimate or call into question what your fellow man is capable of doing, once he sets his mind to do something, in this case, something that is seemingly impossible. All around you are people who are far more intelligent and capable of doing remarkable things, than you and I Just because you have difficultly in understanding how something was accomplished, doesn't mean that it didn't happen no matter how you 'feel' about it.
@@apolloskyfacer5842 Dude,i know you "feel" that i'm not very inteligent for not beliving in the famous moonlanding but that doesnt mean it,s the absolute truth and by being certain of it ,by default this makes you more inteligent in any way whatsoever.
@@alexal5889 Here's a 'heads up' about where I was during the Apollo 11 Moon Landing. I had a small part to play in that momentous event way back in 1969. I was 24 at the time and part of a team of contract electricians at the Honeysuckle Relay station and the nearby deep space tracking station at Tidbinbilla. near Canberra in Australia (ACT), when the first signals came through. The Parkes Radio Dish in NSW was also involved in the relaying work. Even though I was not one of the NASA personnel who were there as radio technicians, I was still part of the event. Our job was to make sure the electrical gird was secure. It was a most memorial day. Yes, I was one of the 400.000 people world wide who were involved,directly and indirectly in the mission to send man out to the Moon and to walk on the Lunar surface. and to get them back safely. We all had our part to play, even though my job was not quite the prestigious work the NASA personnel had. In a very small way, I was part of that history.
@@alexal5889 Sadly for you Mr Alexal, Modern History is what it is. NOT what you think or wish it to be. And the SIX Apollo Moon Landing Missions are a series of astonishing events in that history. Best you get used to the Reality of it all.
There are several inaccuracies in this video but the ones that really caught my attention were that SpaceX Starship's 33 Raptor engines generate over 16 million pounds of thrust which is nearly twice that of the Saturn V rockets thrust. Also, SpaceX's Starship (with Super Heavy rockets) stands about 31 feet taller than NASA's Saturn V rockets.
I think the details are in the language being used. “Starship” is the upper stage of the fully stacked rocket. So Starship (or “SS”) sits atop the SuperHeavy rocket (or “SH”). So SH can get SS to NEO. Apparently SS can’t propel itself to the moon directly afterwards because of its incredible size. Remember it can accommodate 100 people or 100 tons…something like that. I think 100 people require a great deal of heavy life support equipment and materials, supplies, food etc. Ok. Now we have big old SS up in orbit. So it has equipment for the moon. But it needs more fuel that couldn’t come along for the ride in addition with the moon equipment. So that may be why another 15 or so SS fuel tanker launches are needed in order to add enough fuel to send SS to the moon. I never understood any of this until thinking it through in the writing of this post. Please let me know if I’m not correct; I’m happy to edit it if I’m wrong…I just want to fully understand the problem that we have in terms of why SS can’t just be launched and fly to the moon in one shot.
The Super heavy block-one version presently generates 74.4 MN (16.7 million lbf) thrust. While Saturn IV generated 34.5 million newtons (7.6 million pounds). More than double. SH is 71 m (233 ft) tall, while Starship is 50.3 m (165 ft). Saturn 5 was 110.6 m (363 ft) tall. So 35' taller than Saturn V. Starship block-2 will have stretched tanks in both booster and second stage, with 35 Raptors in SH, 6 sea-level and 3 vacuum Raptors in Starship. This should increase real payload capacity from 45 mt [presently] up to 110 mt (242550 lb). Block-2 is going to be used for the HLS contract unless block-3 arrives sooner than expected.
@@imconsequetau5275Dude, you got your data on the Starship Blk 2 backwards: It's going to have 6 vacuum engines and 3 sea level engines. As for the actual moon lander, that's going to need an almost entirely different engine configuration altogether because the moon has no atmosphere and a loose, rocky surface - no hardened landing pads there yet.
@@Bobcat665 Of course we know that Starship HLS is going to have high-mounted landing engines. Where did you find definitive specs on block-2 ? I couldn't just trust any artist's depictions, so I concluded practically that SpaceX wouldn't risk the additional cost of 3 more vacuum Raptors until the recovery rate exceeded 85%, or 7 recovered Starships. The tanker versions could easily exceed 3 gravity but you also want to rapidly accumulate a lot of experience with human rated designs. So, using 3, 4, or 6 vacuum Raptors for tankers will depend on how much you are going to allow acceleration to exceed 3 gravity, and also on gravity drag equations. As the ship weight drops from ~2100 mt down to ~200 mt, you shut off all but one sea level engine in stages and then throttle down and shutoff pairs of vacuum Raptors to stay within load spec. The vacuum bell mass of shut-down engines, and how long they are dead weight, are factors.
@@Bobcat665 Of course we know that Starship HLS is going to have high-level landing engines. What's your source on block-2 vacuum engines? Artist depictions?
Nope. The best Hollywood could do was 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is immediately recognizable as a fake: it’s obvious it was filmed on Earth, in Earth’s gravity. The Apollo videos were filmed in 1/6 g gravity, which cannot be replicated on Earth.
STOP THE PRESS ! It's has now been confirmed that the moon landing deniers actually have supernatural powers. They can change anything that they can't understand into a conspiracy theory !
@@Ruda-n4h ... and then he burned to death. And then all that poor quality suddenly went away and the replacement crew to the moon, just like that. Is that what you are trying to say, because I am trying to say something else ... c'mon, it's not funny anymore!
Yup. Artemis being behind schedule and over budget is a sign they are trying to do it for real. The fact that Apollo was always on schedule is a big red flag.
@@slbenson5206 "Always on schedule" - Apollo 1 setting program back by 1 year - Lunar Module delays pushing back moon landing until mid 1969 instead of spring - Apollo 13 explosion in April 1970 delays next flight until 1971
We have never been to the moon, not only has our computers and technology advanced, but so has our jet engines and thrusters. Plug we now have lighter and stronger materials. Yet they can't make it work
@@KornPop96 It's on video tape guy. And way before photoshop. Even if you still believe -in Santa Claus- that the moon walks were real events, there is still no way the documentation isn't totally faked. Even the best, officially released footage, once you know what to look for, you can see it's a fraud.
This entire explanation video just made us all believe it didn't happen in the 1st place. Because all it is now is why we can't do it and give excuses. Excuses are lies.
This new plan seems like actually what it takes to go to the moon in the first place. Proving that the 60’s landing cannot stand up to scrutiny. Now we know.
@kenmoser7333 I was told there would be people like you. Call me crazy. In the end we will see who in fact is crazy. Or stupid or vile. Not me. Not anyone with Jesus in their heart and minds. You're under the influence of things that you don't even know about. Get help before it's too late
It's only harder because they're doing it with 2.5% of the budget they used to go the first time. NASA doesn't build anything, it's all government contracts. Hard to get things built when you can't afford to pay anybody but the lowest bidder. This is why SLS is derivative of the shuttle rocket and Orion is a jazzed up Apollo era capsule.
Dude, there is a Japanese moon probe that took a picture of a landing site. There is also the communication evidence during the actual time period, where only certain parts of the globe could communicate with the astronauts (only possible when taking into account the moon's position around the earth).
Old Buzz couldn't put his hand on the bible and swear to god that he was there, instead buzz chose to argue with the cameraman "seen in another video clip" many years ago. I think that actually says it all about what it was really about. - The technology that existed at the time was not enough to handle such a project as landing on the moon. It is very quietly spoken of these 3 gentlemen who died a very strange death "Grissom, White, and Chaffee". Here you can discuss what was actually behind it.
@@stigmichaelsomsrilundin8255 Buzz didn’t put his hand on a Bible because the person who wanted him to do that was a known charlatan. Buzz was lured to a venue on false pretenses, where Bart Sibrel accosted him, called Buzz a liar, ranted at him and THEN demanded, not asked, that he put his hand on a Bible. Buzz was right in not indulging the demands of a lunatic.
So many excuses. I'm still on the fence that we actually landed on the moon. This video actually helps to validate my hypothesis that we did not land on the moon. Thanks Dr. Sutter
Let's start from a different perspective so that the context of your views or hypotheses are clear... do you truly believe people have been into space? If so, then when do you think we first went into space and why do you believe it?
@@russofam.1090 The Van Allen belts are very narrow, occupying a fraction of the path between the Earth and the Moon. Due to its trajectory and speed, the Saturn V rocket went through the outer portions of the belts in less than 2 hours, so the dose of radiation was within safety limits. Each mission flew a slightly different course in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was inclined to the Earth’s equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts. Low energy electrons were the main ionising particles that the astronauts had to navigate through and not electromagnetic waves e.g. ultraviolet, infrared, gamma etc. Electrons can pass through living tissue without creating much damage as they are very small. The command module’s outer hull was made of stainless steel and the (upper) heat shield from epoxy resin, which along with the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls was a very effective form of shielding against protonic radiation.
There are no external recordings of any of the Apollo missions landing. However, each landing was captured by an interior static data acquisition camera mounted in one of the windows of the LM.
SO NASA LIED TO THE WHOLE WORLD ABOUT THAT ROCKET ON THE MOON WITH NEIL ARMSTRONG IN IT WITH 2 OTHERS..... LOL❗️❗️❗️ THAT MEANS.....THE RUSSIANS WON THE RACE TO OUTER SPACE ...NOT AMERICA THE LIAR ❗️❗️❗️
Its a Transformer just like the Sun, solid or not, Lightbulb may be landable, but sure aint 240,000 Miles away! Looking with lame telescope or binoculars :)
I am an old fellow that started computing in 1968, the year before Apollo 10. These days the computing power of cell phones are quite literally millions of times faster (GHz instead of kHz) with millions of times the memory (Gbytes instead of kBytes). Just think about that for a moment. Hell, that took some programming skill.
well yes, but there are reasons and motivation for more powerful computing. Though Apollo computers were very primitive, they rode a vehicle with a zillion horsepower. ***THAT*** is what is needed to go to the moon, otherwise we'll end up like Soviets trying to perfect the N1.
@@wrightmf It does not take much computing power to fly a rocket, or anything else for that matter.. It's little more than solving F=ma twenty times a second. Maybe x(t) = A1 cos(ω0t) + A2 sin(ω0t), where A1 and A2 are constants for landing the LEM. You _can_ get more sophisticated, but it's all the same complexity of equations that are solved every 50ms or so. Calculated desired position and use the difference from the current position to find the steering and thrust output and repeat the same thing over and over.
True. By the time I was studying in college in 1974, the computer room still used punch card for programming. Hard to believe moon landing in the 70s with the technology at that time.
Wikipedia -> Apollo 6 -> first line quote : "Apollo 6 (April 4, 1968), also known as AS-502, was the third and final *_UNCREWED_* flight in the United States' Apollo Program ..." So yeah it "clearly" put the non existing crew in mortal danger
@@daryllect6659 The orientation of the retroreflectors left on the Moon, such as to accurately reflect light back to their source to measure the Moon’s distance from Earth, meant that they could only be left by hand. The rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades, the dust from the rover falls back in a way only possible in a 1/6g vacuum and Japanese and Indian probes have photographed traces of the Apollo 11 and 15 landing sites.
The simple answer is they flew them as quickly as possible. Just like an X-ray machine the danger from radiation comes from the length of the exposure. If you just stand there in front of the machine for hours it can kill you, but a quick picture is safe. The Van Allen Belts are shaped like a doughnut that cling to the Earth on the sides and have no presence at the poles. So the safest route would have been to travel up from the pole, but this wasn't feasible because you would need considerably more fuel than launching from near the equator. So the compromise was to the launch the spacecraft at an angle to avoid as much of Van Allen Belts as possible. The Apollo missions took a minimum exposure trajectory. They were able to just skirt the first belt and traveled through the second one very quickly. The ship also had a degree of radiation shielding, or at least as much as they could put on there
NASA's funding for 2024 is $25billion, the US military budget for 2024 is $842billion. It's strange so many people criticise the funding NASA get but are fine with the Military budget, or even go as far as saying NASA is just a scam to steal the funding they get when NASA is a division of the US Government which has a total yearly budget of over $6trillion, so either NASA has the government which they are a part of fooled and are stealing their funding without anyone else in the government figuring out it's a scam, or the US government is in on the scam, when the US government could steal a measly $25billion from taxpayers without even needing any story or scam to cover it, it's peanuts.
Is 290 billion the cost it would be today? Only reason why I’m watching this video. You see we’ve given Ukraine and Israel more than that in the last 2 years… but duh money is too much to go back der
The Apollo spacecraft did not need radiation shielding. The MLI (which you call “gold tin foil”) was there for thermal insulation, not radiation. By 1962, we had measured the radiation level in the van Allen belts, and we found humans can safely travel through the belts. The radiation level in the belts is high enough to be a problem when you spend a long time there, but not high enough to cause immediate problems.
The Van Allen Belts contain mainly Alpha and Beta particles. Alpha will be stopped by a sheet of paper and the majority of Beta by a few mm of Aluminium. Of more concern would be the Hydrogen Nuclei in the denser parts of the inner belt but the Apollo spacecraft spent very little time in the inner VAB. You must remember that not only did the spacecraft hull act as shielding but so did everything that it contained, fuel, fittings, equipment, etc. The main challenge for the Artemis Program is that modern electronics and IC's are far more susceptible to damage from particle radiation than the electronics of the Apollo era. Rigorous testing of the electronics had to be carried out before a crewed mission. Interesting to note that you obviously believe NASA and Dr. James Van Allen (who advised NASA) when the tell you that these belts exist so perhaps you should look up James Van Allen's explanation of how to pass through them. Take care.
@@Hobbes746 What about the reconnecting of the landing module coming back from the moon surface, onto the orbital capsule where Collins had stayed ? That's a tough one for 1960's technology. I believe Musk can't reproduce that in the 2020's, but in the 60's.. sure no problem. It involves intersecting 2 trajectories on the fligh, with basic equipement, locking the 2 devices one-onto-the-other, managing decompression without any explosion, and letting the 2 astronauts back in the main capsule. Before setting course back to Earth. All of that, successful on first try. Mmmmmmh..
@@goofygrandlouis6296 Musk has reproduced that many times in the 2020s, with Dragon capsules flying to and docking with the ISS. The rendezvous of the LM with the CM was made as easy as possible. The CM orbited the moon. The LM undocked from it, and landed on a narrow strip of land right under that orbit. The CM was in a fixed orbit, so they could predict when the CM would fly over the landing site. The radar on the LM could be used to verify this. Once that verification was done, all they had to do was launch the LM at the correct time, and fly a preprogrammed profile that put the LM near the CM. A radar system could then be used to locate the CM and get nearer, and the final approach was flown manually by observing the CM through the windows.
@@goofygrandlouis6296 Rendezvous was studied extensively, and practiced on Gemini missions before the first Apollo mission. Then several Apollo missions flew the LM and re-docked it with the CM, first in Earth orbit, then in lunar orbit before Apollo 11. So “successful after lots of practice” is a more accurate description.
@JW-mb6tq I used to work for Boeing in their Everett Offices. My aunt, father in law and many friends are career Boeing (aunt was the executive assistant to the CEO for 3 CEOs). The information I have heard leads me to my bet.
Lost “institutional knowledge” is much like Grandma’s cornbread recipe that wasn’t written down and hasn’t been successfully duplicated despite many attempts. A top boss of my past employer not only tossed out all the copies of the physically thick and comprehensive established Policy & Procedures books…in order to start over under a new administration…but also denigrated the vast knowledge base of the combined staff, the people with tried and true skills, the people with bright and shiny ideas… The results weren’t at all positive. The “cornbread” wasn’t fit for a hungry squirrel!!
Yeah, instead of buying a Mustang, I asked Ford for a new Model A. They couldn’t do it. Some here would say that was evidence that the Model A never existed.
I get your message but in this case there was absolutely no squirrel or recipe for space blue ribbons simply because they were not able to get to the moon but we're actually perpetrating the vinacular w slow motion technology... Yes no technology for none needed..pick any moonwalk sir and go to speed settings,2xfast is real time and there's nothing else to say about it, but it's the truth...no cap , no way ,ck my ch.🤔
@@petermcgill1315They could, but automobiles are massed produced, thus it would make it cost-prohibitive. Space rockets like Saturn V aren’t, they were custom made and also very expensive, but very possible to replicate today.
A few things which make me think they faked the landings; BTW - I taught the NASA myth for 20 years and it only after going down the 9/11 rabbit hole that I started seeing evidence to the contrary. My first model was of the Saturn V and I made it in 1970 when I was 10 years old. I lived and breathed the Apollo Missions for the next 40 years. Just answer some of these undeniable facts and I can go back to my model building. 1 Vacuum and Dust - sealing up doors, suit/helmet/gloves with so much dust - can't see how they do and no transcript explains 2 Photographic film - (kodak says that it was regular Ektachrome, same kind used in the spy satellites used in the late 60's and early 70's) no signs of damage by degassing, radiation, extreme temperature range 3. Amazing track record: - The number of tests required now before a crew is allowed to travel is ridiculous Only 13 actual launches of Saturn 5 - 3 without crews 6 successful LM landings and lunar launches/docking. ( only actual practice of LM was when Apollo 10 crew detached, practice manuevering crafted and docked) 100 percent survival and with no immediate or chronic health problems - All Apollo Splash downs were within 4 km of predicted LZ despite skip re-entry techniques - Apollo 13 was 1.85 km from predicted. Apollo 8 was the 4th launch of a Saturn V and was planned to orbit Earth and instead it left Earth orbit for the first time, tried lunar orbit insertion for the first time, return to Earth as scheduled and landed 2 km from pick up site. They were also the first to test heat shield with Lunar return speeds of 40 000 km per hr, where as the Low Earth Orbits re entry speeds are only 28 000 kms . 4. On schedule - 8 years and 2 months from sub-orbital flight lasting 15 minutes to actually walking on the moon. Not bad for a time when 8 tracks, Beatles, Andy Griffith show were all the rage, computers were the size of boxcars and disco had yet to happen. 5. 1000's of Beautiful framed pictures - despite no view finder, no bracket shots . 6. Apollo solved how to build a dependable heavy lift rocket, space suits that worked for excursions, a LM that worked every time, a spaceship that regulated the heat and protected from cosmic radiation and a heat shield that could handle 40 000 km /hr re-entry speed. Unfortuately they are still re-inventing these things 55 years later. 7. There has been no 3rd party confirmation of the landing sites. China and India if they have confirmation of a fraud are keeping it on the down low. NASA's Lunar orbital pictures don’t count. 8. Laser reflectors on the moon isn’t proof. Unmanned probes can do this. 9. Lost - Most original evidence, telemetry and video tapes has been lost, the rocks are still being carefully looked after but I am told it is virtually impossible for a person to do a forensic analysis to confirm providence because you have to apply to get them and explain why you want them. 10. The furthest away from Earth’s surface since Apollo’s moon missions has been when they fixed the HST and were 570 kms away from Earth in 1993 11. 6 trips to the moon and of the thousands of photographs, only a handful of them show Earth, while none show the stars. Oh Yeah ! would it have killed them to leave a telescope on the moon?
These astronauts walked on the moon Date Location Apollo 11 Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, 7/16/1969 Sea of Tranquillity Apollo 12 Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, 11/13/1969 Oceans of Storms (Surveyor 3) Apollo 14 Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, 1/31/1971 Littrow Crater Apollo 15 David Scott, James Irwin, 7/30/1971 Censorinus Crater Apollo 16 John Young, Charles Duke, 4/16/1972 Descartes Highlands Apollo 17 Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt. 12/7/1972 Marius Hills Apollo 18 cancelled Copernicus Crater/Shcroters Apollo 19 cancelled Hadley Rille Apollo 20 cancelled Tycho Crater (Surveyor 7) and these astronauts orbited the moon Apollo 8 Frank Borman, Bill Anders, Jim Lovell Apollo 10 Tom Stafford, Apollo 11 Michael Collins Apollo 12 Dick Gordon, Apollo 13 Jack Swigert, Fred Haise, (Jim Lovell) 4/11/1970 Apollo 14 Stuart Roosa Apollo 15 Al Worden Apollo 16 Thomas Mattingley Apollo 17 Ron Evans
You're just not a techie and therefore can't explain things. So don't start with your model. For example: Any photographer can explain why you can't see stars in daylight. Or ask AI.
It's all in comparison. From the first launch on April 12, 1981 to the final landing on July 21, 2011, NASA's space shuttle fleet flew 135 missions, helped construct the International Space Station and inspired generations. There were 14 missions total during the Apollo Program (1961-1972). Again. 135 to 14.
@@apolloskyfacer5842 good point! The space shuttle was an incredibly ambitious project that on the surface seems important because it never went to the moon or did anything astoundingly groundbreaking. I wish NASA was still that ambitious today.
@@TheEndokuken Now lets have a think about this. Do I believe some random nobody dude on the internet giving his opinion that all SIX Apollo Moon Landings didn't happen ? Or do I accept what Modern History tells me about it all. ? I think I'll go with Modern History if you don't mind. Sorry. Well I'm not really. 🤣
It’s hard to go back… …to a place you’ve never been….but it sure was a feel good distraction from 58 thousand dead teenagers in Vietnam 🇻🇳… wasn’t it 😮
I was a high school National Science Foundation intern at Goddard Space Flight Center when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. A few thoughts to consider after watching the film: 1. We are no longer racing the Soviets, but we are racing the Chinese who are hell-bent on colonizing the Moon. 2. Returning to the Moon requires national will and resolve. For that the U.S. needs leadership which is sorely lacking 3. In the 60s the Apollo project was primarily a singular American project. Today we can collaborate with Europe, Japan, India and yes even Russia and many more. We don’t have to do it all ourselves 4. The Apollo program cost a fortune but the technological spin-offs were enormous. 5. Exploring and colonizing the Solar System is a high priority for Mankind and will energize and motivate millions of people, particularly our young to aspire to great achievements at a time when they are lost and confused about the most basic things and values. We are wasting trillions on silly endeavors which could be used to move humanity to heights we can now only dream of. I could go on. Thank you for the film. And Godspeed
@@Ajaxx827wow, you’re just asserting something as fact and insulting someone who made a thoughtful and interesting post and who has a background in science.
Sorry you are totally wrong. Russia were miles ahead of us in every aspect of the space race! People don't give up trying, just because one country did it! If Russia could have put a man on the moon then and now, they would have done so, there's trillions of minerals waiting to be had. Funding is NOT the issue. The Van Allen belts and space radiation are! Russia and China have sent Landers to the moon at less than $200million, we spent $10 Billion just on the JWST, with zero payback. The moon is rich in Helium 3 which has a current retail of more than $140 million per tonne!!! Even if we spent 10 Billion sending a mining crew to the moon, we could recoup that money back in Helium 3, in no time.
You know NASA itself is the origin of such a theory. It was all about destroying interest in this place that contains high tech remnants of an ancient society. Brookings Report/Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. You've got to read the entire documents because the summations give you the wrong/false impressions.
@@dpackman *_"not a metaphor, they knew the truth"_* It’s a song about the allure of Hollywood and being famous, but acknowledging the dark side to such a Faustian pact. Californication is a song about the underbelly of American society. There’s deceit, plasticity, and desperation under the facade of the American Dream. The lyrics reflect these extremes - both the elaborate gilded nature of it all and the darkness underneath. In essence, it’s a song about the rot that lies just underneath the surface. Californication is a particular ethos packaged as a cultural commodity and broadcast throughout the world in order to penetrate into other cultures. In addition to exploring the all pervasive nature of this, he observes the shallow attitude of Hollywood and celebrity fame and the desire of the entire world to join in on it. He highlights the superficiality of the packaged California dream using Hollywood as an example of the phony illusion created. The suggestion that a distorted reality is getting closer to a farfetched sci-fi/fantasy is a disturbing notion that the song broaches. The idea that something as vast as space could be artificially manufactured in a cramped basement highlights the truly limitless scale of Hollywood falsities. The sadness evoked by imagining that there is nothing beyond us, and nowhere left to explore, matches the overall melancholic tone of the song. "The thought of Hollywood controlling the perception of the entire world has larger and more accurate implications than daft conspiracy theories about the moon landings". Anthony Kiedis (September 2000). Do you also take the following line literally? "Alderaan's not far away, it's Californication" Seriously how dim do you have to be that someone has to explain an Anthony Kiedis lyric to you ffs, because you are incapable of interpreting it for yourself?
No, Aldrin didn’t say that. He answered the question of “why haven’t we been back for such a long time” with “because we didn’t go”, i.e. because we decided not to go back, but spend our money on other things instead. Watch the whole interview, instead of the misleading cut presented by moon landing deniers.
@@Hobbes746 @Hobbes746 the impossible moon landing in 68. No way to descend to the lunar surface even if you're still alive after passing through the radiation belt. Because there's no atmosphere and you'd have to ride the tip of a rocket flame at 3000 miles per hour without losing your balance. Even Elon Musk hasn't managed that yet.
@Hobbes746 Always easier to convince someone of a lie rather than they’ve been lied to. Why did NASA delete all of their supposed moon landing data? I suppose you got all of your Covid vaccines too. Lol 😂
Arthur C. Clarke commented on the Space Shuttle program, describing it as a camel -- that is, a horse designed by committee. He'd mentioned that the program had Federal legislators arranging to have parts built in their districts to provide jobs for their constituents, and that the shuttle design was so poor it "strained its guts to work."
And you do really "believe" ? A code programed from humans and humans have subjective view of situations....🤔 I don't know what do you believe, but i would be very very sceptical even for A.I. and if is manipulative,so yes there is a debate if humans step on moon BUT even the moon landing arguments have many many plot holes, so the bottom line is something subjective, unfortunately after all this they make the public opinion to doubt for something but we really don't know what they get if they make people believe false hypothesis, so the final bottom line is all we must sceptic with the non moon landing sceptic theory....!!!!
Now we know why they have to tell people in todays world on why drinking antifreeze is a bad idea. People be out here believing everything on the internet except the actual rocket scientists
Common Sense mandates that it is much easier to perform a moon landing in a Hollywood studio Then broadcast on a TV set. Getting there in reality is yet to be achieved.
Is that so ! Well I never ! Strike me down with a feather ! Gather around everyone. Mr Kelvinring here is going to rewrite Modern History ! He's going to be famous ! FAMOUS I say !
@@billblake5177 the fact that your military gets more funding than education and health care is stupid. Defund it, if it was lowered by even 1% it would be a huge boost for social programs, if I was American I'd want it cut by 5% with that 5% going into heath and education.
Nasa JPL have some pretty significant inventions which are in daily use all over the world. From Anti-corrosion coatings to camera sensors. Definitely worth gathering some refrenece material before claiming that 0.3% is a huge waste... Now the US DOD they like to waste money including a standby airline and the ARFC... I know where I'd rather my tax money went.
Just spend a couple of minutes using open-AI or another artificial intelligence application and ask for definitive schedules for when the next moon and moon landing will occur. You have to really spend some time cornering them with this question. You'll find that there is no date set.
because we never went 9 times.... Orbital mission Apollo 8 Frank Borman, Bill Anders, Jim Lovell Dec 1968 First landing dress rehearsal Apollo 10 Tom Stafford, John Young, Eugene Cernan 5/19/1969 Astronauts who walked on the moon Date Location Apollo 11 Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, 7/16/1969 Sea of Tranquillity Apollo 12 Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, 11/13/1969 Oceans of Storms (Surveyor 3) Apollo 14 Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, 1/31/1971 Littrow Crater Apollo 15 David Scott, James Irwin, 7/30/1971 Censorinus Crater Apollo 16 John Young, Charles Duke, 4/16/1972 Descartes Highlands Apollo 17 Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt. 12/7/1972 Marius Hill Astronauts who orbited the moon in the Command module Apollo 11 Michael Collins Apollo 12 Dick Gordon, Apollo 13 Jack Swigert, Fred Haise, (Jim Lovell) 4/11/1970 Apollo 14 Stuart Roosa Apollo 15 Al Worden Apollo 16 Thomas Mattingley Apollo 17 Ron Evans
@@BadAtTeaDude correct... the actors performed the landing scenes 6 tomes on the 'sound'stage erected on the moon by technicians sent on previous secret missions. These actors trained for years to perfect the fakery... Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, 7/16/1969 Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, 11/13/1969 Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, 1/31/1971 David Scott, James Irwin, 7/30/1971 John Young, Charles Duke, 4/16/1972 Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt. 12/7/1972
Incorrect. The radiation level in the van Allen belts is low enough that humans can travel through them safely, if they don’t spend too much time in the belts. The Apollo missions traversed the belts in only 3 hours. There’s nothing impossible about going to the moon. All of the arguments used by the moon landing deniers fall apart on examination.
Here are the words of Dr. James Van Allen himself, the man after whom the belts are named and the man who advised NASA during the Apollo Program: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." Dr. James A. Van Allen.
Stop parroting what you've seen on a deceitful YT site. The claim former astronaut Buzz Aldrin admitted in a video there was no moon landing is false. The short clip has been taken out of context from a longer video in which he mentions successfully landing on the moon several times. The clip isolates his answer to a question about why no one has returned to the moon since 1972. Aldrin has written many books recalling his experiences on the Apollo 11 mission in 1969 and has spoken frequently about walking on the moon. 😎
Celebrities of philanthropic work also get nominated... Why is it so hard for you guys to use a simple search engine if not afraid of being wrong ? You guys would take the word of musicians and film directors over literal rocket scientists... I guess this is why they have to explain to people now days why it's a bad idea to drink antifreeze. people believe anything on the internet nowdays lol 😊
you forgot the stretched SRB's not just the engines inherited from the Shuttle. Talking of delays and bloated budgets you also omitted the white elephant in the room ... Boeing.
@@shirleymental4189 Spread Speak for yourself. I saw the live broadcast of Apollo 11, and I've reviewed a great deal of the other evidence. I also see no reason why they couldn't have done it, given that they had the knowledge, the technology, and the money to do it.
Thank you for not using AI generated narration like so many channels have defaulted to.
funny they have AI narrate videos now, but cant go back to the moon because "it's too expensive" even though they spend way more on funding wars in ukraine and Israel
@@randuthaynelol would you go back to where there no treasures? Only lunar rocks 😂
@@pasonveronica2370 . . if you can show up the first time without being caught spreading petrified wood afterward as the genuine article . . Interesting that recent returns from the Chinese unmanned lunar mission contained rocks having an entirely different ratio of minerals not remotely matching any of the material from Apollo missions . . No 60 minutes quest is forthcoming however -- let alone network news coverage in fake journalistic enterprise beyond celebrity gossip.
@@pasonveronica2370only reason we really need to go back is for the alleged abundance of helium-3 which would make a more efficient fuel for further exploration and possibly manned missions to the outer worlds.
@@randuthayne the bit, explanes the fir go at anything, it unknown, some times you nee to actuly build tooling needed to, to even make the machine you want to make, NASA it's self, big tool needed for task,, well doing, it second or third time? almost everything, from the first go? so costs sould go down, second third fourth, and soon on,
Forgot to mention NASA also "lost" about *14.000* tapes with telemetry data from the Apollo project, vanish, gone.
Wouldn’t want anyone these days to prove they actually faked it, so you know, lose that important data asap.
@@Samuelfish2k its bit like unrelated buildings collapsing on 9-11 full of computers and paperwork. Its a sad fact of life that Goverments lie to us every single day.
@@Samuelfish2k If you actually think they 'faked' it....I challenge you to go to Florida and look at the Saturn V they have laying on its' side and tell me it's not real. And often times there will be people there who worked on the Apollo project who will be happy to answer any questions you might have. But you won't do that because you'd rather live with your delusions than find out the truth.
If you actually look...you can find blueprints, specifications, test procedures and results from every single part in that spacecraft....of which there are millions. All faked...of course. Once you see the mountain of documentation it should start to dawn on you that it was real.
@@Samuelfish2kThey lost the telemetry tapes for ONE mission only. You can find the Apollo 15 telemetry data online. So, that’s a very poor excuse.
@@SteveSteeleSoundSymphony they lost them all.
When you bought a car in the 60's. Your owner manual gave instructions on how to adjust your valve lash. Today, your manual warns against drinking the antifreeze. Society has become "stupidy".
This
It’s by design. It’s a lot easier to control scared and stupid people.
Read any current issue of Scientific American and compare them to articles written in the 1940’s: analytical, comprehensive, efficient is expressing complex concepts. Even the ads back then make you realize they were operating on a much higher plain and not treating the reader like a child with zero attention span. Although, that last part should be especially earmarked to the American news/entertainment infintalization complex.
Operating on a higher plane. I know. I went to public school as well.
@@johnlaughlin266
Infantilization, yes.
$280B is too expensive? Wait a minute--we just apent $150B in Ukraine, and US spent $1T on the war in Afghanistan. If we put our asses in our pants, we would have enough to land moon 4 times the past decade.
What financial return do you get from moon missions? No profit, no interest - been there, done that.
What financials from Ukraine ?@@GavinScrimgeour
We don't need Rockets to get to the moon or anywhere else in the solar system. Rockets are as obsolete as Dinosaurs. They were obsolete for manned exploration of space before they left the drawing boards. There is a better more efficient way that NASA has never even considered and never will, they are hopeless. It's up to Private Aerospace to get the job done, but not with big dumb dangerous inefficient Rockets.
@@GavinScrimgeour never been there. Never done that. Wake up and smell the coffee. Neil Armstrong was giving away fake moon rocks claiming they are from the moon. Also Google's most advanced AI detector says the photos are faked
@@GavinScrimgeour And what benefits did we get spending trillions in Afghanistan, Ukraine ? None whatsoever.
If the mission was that expensive, then why they didn't quit after first successful mission or 2nd mission?
Because so much hardware had been bought that they had to get some value out of it.
In 1962, NASA contracted for fifteen Saturn V rockets to achieve the Apollo programme's goal of a manned landing on the Moon by 1970; at the time no one knew how many missions this would require. Since success was obtained in 1969 with the sixth Saturn V on Apollo 11, nine rockets remained available for a hoped-for total of ten landings.
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.
On January 4, 1970, NASA announced the cancellation of Apollo 20 so that its Saturn V could be used to launch the Skylab space station, as budget restrictions had limited the Saturn V production to the original 15.
Another lunar landing was lost in April 1970 when Apollo 13 had its in-flight failure, and the Fra Mauro landing site was reassigned to Apollo 14. Then on September 2, 1970, NASA announced the cancellation of Apollos 18 and 19, due to more budget cuts. Apollo 15 became the first of three extended J missions, and the landing site was moved to Hadley Rille, originally planned for Apollo 19. The Apollo 17 landing site was moved to the Taurus-Littrow Valley due to technical and geological considerations. Skylab was also pushed out to 1973:
Because it was a success so they were able to continue getting support. they had two more missions planed but after 8 trips (6 landings) they stopped getting the financial support they required. so they pivoted to Mars.
@@Nation4 But why they would go , it there was nothing to be found.
@@M.R.Baloch Why would they go in the 8 times? Two reasons; 1 is the cold war. Russia was trying to go as well and they were ahead of the US in the space race at the time. So it was a way of flexing muscles that we made it happen. The other simple reason is humans have always had a strong urge to explore. they did learn lots of information about the moon, the earth and the solar system.
@@Nation4 and the fact is After these missions, no other country even Russia didn't attempt a man made mission to Moon with this modern technology.
With modern technology it should be easier not harder
Yes of course . They couldn't go in 60s or since then . 😊
The hard part is prying the funding out of Congress. They'd rather pay to house all these newly-arrived Democrat voters in hotels than fund science.
@@marksprague1280 You can't cut taxes and increase the budget.
@marksprague1280 The space race and the Cold War were both imaginary money pits. Because they were imaginary, the government was able to cut taxes for the rich.
Space telescopes and landing on asteroids and comets, that's real science. You should be happy that we do any science.
@@rawmilkmike When has of the KluKKer party ever actually cut taxes?
Pretty impressive that you can take less than five minutes worth of talking points and stretch it out for over 30 minutes.
😂😂😂
The essence of academia! The worst of the academic approach is pedantics.
Holy crap I was just thinking the same thing.
Good job
Specialy when the idea doesn't make sense. 😂
The fact that Aldrin didn’t put his hand on the Bible when he was asked tells me everything I need to know.😂
Three other Apollo astronauts did swear on the Bible, though. What does that tell you?
@therealzilch many lie intentionally when putting hands on the Bible..especially with a gun on their backs 😂😂😂 hoping God will understand
@@SamsonHosea-g7p Maybe God helped NASA to fake the Moon landings.
@@therealzilchIt tells me that Aldrin is a dedicated Christian while those three are not.
@@colouroflife1 He was actually a mason, the antithesis of a Christian......but yeah carrying that lie destroyed him in the end
That’s ludicrous that we couldn’t rebuild a Saturn V rocket today, I do not believe that for a second. The other idea that we lost some of the technology we used is also preposterous.
Oh and also we as a government couldn’t blow Elon Musk if we built our own rockets.
Why would we want to build terribly outdated rockets? That's like asking why we don't mass produce Ford Model Ts anymore. 😂😂😂
Not ar all ludicrous! I retired from an industry which peaked in the 80s. It was clear specialization and continuation of expertize were declining in various systems/techbolgy in the following decades
@@austinlumpkins1955we did not "lose the tech" we lost the INFRASTRUCTURE.
We cannot build cathode ray tube televisions in the US either.
Does that mean we "lost" the tech? No.
They were told to destroy the blueprints for the Saturn V. One NASA employee smuggled one of the blueprints home as a souvenir, but reported that a week or two later (I have forgotten the exact length of time he said) a couple of federal agents showed up at his front door and demanded he hand over his pilfered blueprint. He didn't know how they knew, but they figured it out somehow. It was old technology, not a national security risk. Why were they so anxious to destroy the plans? The obvious deduction: it was evidence. Evidence of something they wanted to hide forever. This is but one of many pieces of evidence that point to this conclusion. On the positive side, if it is this hard just to get to the moon, we probably don't have to worry about space aliens.
280 billion dollars for appolo which had 6 trips to the moon.... And now NASA already spent 90 billion without a single trip yet.
It's over 300 billion today, one Artemis mission costs about the same as one Apollo mission, a few billion dollars, the development of hardware for the whole program is much cheaper in comparison, Saturn V alone cost over 60 billion dollars to develop.
nasa is a jobs program
That’s Apollo - one P and two L’s
There isn't the will from the government or from the public as there was during the Cold War in 1961, which was a completely different time. Nobody really cares now. The government is more concerned in spending the money in the right congressional areas than going to the Moon. It was only done originally as a vanity project to get a new president out of trouble.
@stephenbarrette610 yes grammar teacher
The explanations set forth in this video only made me doubt it happened even more
ABSOLUTELY, thank you.
There is no longer any doubt. No one can go beyond 400 miles up. Let alone 240,000 miles to the moon or 39,000,000 miles to mars.
Let me guess. The earth is flat, and there is firmament preventing moon landing.
Have you looked into the science behind the moon landings? The communication and guidance technology definitely existed at the time, as well as the rocket technology.
Both the US and Soviet Union could hit individual cities with many nuclear missles by the early 70s. They didn't even need pilots. How much harder would it really have been to hit the entire moon with additional pilot guidance?
Let's not forget, either, that the Soviet Union did land probes on the moon, too. China, India and the Russia also have more recent photographs of the stuff we left behind on the moon.
We have done much harder things in space than go to the moon. Yet the moon landing is what we doubt.
It's so difficult to go to the moon.....and they want to go to Mars??? Are you kidding???? No human being will ever go there.
To the moon? Maybe as one of the last things mankind ever does in space.....
Only person who ever moon walked was Michael Jackson
We lost the map on how to get there
😂🎉😅
@@SpanishArmadaProd they can use goggle maps 🤣
😂😂😂
Apparently they navigated via stars
then denied seeing any
Or never went😂
From the Earth to the Moon…
The original idea of sending humans to the moon, travelling through the hazardous and life threatening void of uncharted space, came not from the minds of scientists, but from the visionary and futuristic minds of early science fiction writers.
In, particular Jules Verne, who in 1867, published his ground breaking science fiction novel; ‘From the Earth to the Moon’, a stimulating and technically accurate story that included a crew of three sitting inside a moon lander positioned at the top of a three stage projectile, a successful Moon landing, a return to Earth, culminating in a parachute controlled ocean splash down, a rescue by ship and a triumphant homecoming to jubilant celebrations.
An exciting science fiction story that proved to be a major boyhood inspiration for Wernher von Braun* who, years later, as a brilliant young WW2 German aerospace engineer and designer of the lethal NAZI V-2 rocket, dreamed of one day building giant rockets that would be capable of sending humans into space and on to the Moon.
So, did a ‘sci fi’ inspired Wernher von Braun’s dream ever become a reality?
Did a three stage, manned rocket that he designed as the director of NASA’s George C. Marshall Space Flight Centre, really fly three men into Earth orbit in 1969. And did those three men really cross the vast airless vacuum of space, travelling 238,855 miles ‘From the Earth to the Moon’ in a 'tin can' command module that had the miniscule computing power of a pocket calculator. And were two of those men really landed on the surface of the Moon dressed in flimsy zipped up 'beta cloth' space suits in an untested and ungainly Moon lander that looked like a hastily constructed film prop. And did they safely return to Earth in their command module, culminating in a parachute controlled ocean splash down, a rescue by ship, and a triumphant homecoming to jubilant celebrations?
Or was it all just a spectacular piece of orchestrated theatre?
Yes, they did it. And there's no way they could have faked it convincingly. For instance, they were tracked all the way to the Moon and back, by the Soviets, the Australians, the Spanish, and even by some ham radio amateurs. It's physically impossible to fake the direction of tracking.
@@marlborough2016 The truth was out the whole time they did it. Anyone who's looked into it, and has at least junior high understanding of science and the history of technology, knows that. Anyone still questioning it today will very unlikely believe it with any new evidence. It will just be more FAKE!!!
That's because it's not about the facts for at least 90% of Moon landing deniers, it's about the denial. I hope you're one of the 10%.
@@marlborough2016
Amen to that...
@@frankyuk Have you come up with an explanation of how they could have faked the direction of tracking yet?
@@therealzilchhave you truly looked at the video that was released by NASA of the landing, honestly where are the stars
It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.
Oh ffs - how many times? Never ceases to amuse that those still insisting on parroting this are completely oblivious to the irony coming from gullible believers in dumb online conspiracy theory. At least you didn't wrongly attribute it to Mark Twain which is a first.
@@yassassin6425You are pretty sensitive. Why are you lashing out at someone who happens to have a different opinion than you?🤫
@@cyn7869
I'm not sensitive in the slightest. Simply that it's the same things mindlessly consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again. And to reiterate, the unintentional irony coming from a believer in dumb online conspiracy theory is as hilarious as it is tragic.
Meanwhile, the fact that we inhabit a world in which opinion is valued over fact by individuals with absolutely zero knowledge of the subjects concerned is not only symptomatic of rampant populism on the internet, but quite frankly dangerous.
@@cyn7869
Do atomic and nuclear weapons exist ?
It seems all atomic and nuclear weapons never fail. They work perfectly at the first time.
Correct and you are the fool .. 😂
It's harder to fake it again now that other countries can watch
They could watch then and tracked it all the way to the moon.
Exactamundo
@@magdebates2697 bingo! You just know the whole thing with a sham. Especially when you hear NASA themselves tell us, we gotta figure out a way to get a guy through the van Allen belt. Like did they already do that? Or they'll say something like they have to figure out a way to protect the astronaut from radiation. But we already did that right? No I don't think they ever left low earth orbit.
😂 ☝️🤡
@@davidgriffithsbjjcoach7207 Yeah. Tracked IT. But was IT manned?
I don't think so.
We're always learning. Today I learned Armstrong et al spent 21 hours on the lunar surface. That's a long time at around 127 Celsius / 240 ISH Fahrenheit.
And flying the module must also of been difficult. So flight there. 21 hours on the surface. Flight back. What drugs were they on? Did they take turns sleeping and keeping watch and flying?
Madness.
It never happened.
"I like money"
Proof that the movie "Idiocracy" is a documentary
we miss Stanley Kubrik!
@@Ezekiel903he made it look so easy
Stanley Kubrick...🤔 I wondered myself if that Women have their grubby Spider Fingers in our Pie?
I mean I cannot even make the Short Symbol of a Spider.
Me too.
Imagine we spent 800billion on space exploration instead of war...
If Muslims were in space trust me they would find the money
@@DrewDaGod-vt6zrthe other side of that conflict are the ones sucking away all the money
@@DrewDaGod-vt6zr that can be safely bet upon -no M will ever walk on the moon, unless he was carried there, bodily, by a C.
You pay 1 Trillion dollars every 90 days on the interest on the national debt!
Imagine we spent 800billion on a gold plated border wall....twice around the entire USA.
Apollo 6 almost killed the crew? There was no crew as it was an uncrewed test.
Exactly, no one survived Apollo 6.
Did he mean Gemini 6?
I'm not familiar with this channel. Does this guy slap them together fast?
@@Three_Random_Words Sure as hell drags it out ,,, He needs to speed it up 5X at least OR have two channels, one for those that maybe finished Junior School and another for those that read at least one of the many Volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica.
@@TagiukGold 🤔 Which part of "uncrewed" didn't you understand? Apollo 6 had no crew. It was an uncrewed or unmanned mission. The only Apollo mission in which "no one survived" was Apollo 1.
NASA guys say they lost the tech while this guy say it is too expensive to go back. Sound like two different issues there.
Both are true.
Now now trust in woke Bill Nelson, be the always dark side or not, money has been found to do the easier to do than fake (half century ago). MARS is less expensive!
2024: "There is more computing power in your handheld device than the entire computing power of the 1960. "
1969: "......"
And?
According to this bogus lying society 9 black women were the computers so if that be true then this comment is valid. Again money ain’t stopping them. They lied and technology caught up with them.
2024: "computers were the size of rooms."
1969: "but there is no shortage of rooms..."
You mean 1969 to 1972 ending with Apollo 17
@@DaveyWest1968 yes
So Ukraine receives the entire Artimus budget every quarter?
Yeah! Makes sense
I made a similar comment yesterday, came back to see responses to my post and found my post had been deleted. :O
We had Vietnam war going on ?
@@indianastan Yes if something has a political motivation there is plenty of money but science or long term human interest does not
Sickening. Isn't it??
Ukraine is a pressing issue of the future world our children inherit. Will it be a world based in logical rule of law, or a world in which it is ok to murder people just to steal their shit. Authoritarian governments are the default animal state but reflect all of mans failings whereas democracy represents a higher ideal which is very hard to hold together always in jeopardy of the tyranny of the many, or the tyranny of the few. Hold foremost in your heart the better angels of your human nature for the sake of our collective future, and be willing to defend them when they are under direct violent assault or we shall perish and enslaved, and miserable species.
If we as a species didn't spend so much money and effort on ways to destroy ourselves..maybe we could accomplish this and a lot more. 🤔
That's arguable, I mean we are talking about one of the greatest achievements in history motivated by one of the greatest superpower schlong measuring contests in human existence.
There are many ways of destroying ourselves. The cost of preventing that from happening costs even more, and going back to the moon is one way of preventing our self destruction.
Ironically, we ride to space on technology developed originally to kill people, but yeah, I'm with you.😊
To be fair. Without war we would likely not have rockets...
Considering that military spending is 800+ billion and that went to NASA instead, then yes we would be on Mars in no time.
Now Boeing can't even put a simple capsule up at the iss
What a joke?
@@terrillfloyd iss is fake too...
Boeing can't even get the holes to line up when assembling the airframe.
Engineer whistle-blower warned using excessive force to line them up still leaves an unacceptable gap that leads to premature metal fatigue.
@@fabirkemarian6370 My theory is that is why they need to pay russia for a rocket ticket to ISS. Even ISS is not real. They are AFRAID of Boeing rocket exploding during first stage of launch.
@@fabirkemarian6370 AND was killed for speaking out.
At this rate its more likely we invent time travel and go back to the 60's to beg for the technology to go to the moon
😂 wow
😂😂😂
Haha
😂😂😂😂
Then the time travelers get disappointed to find out the technology never existed. 😂
(8:15) Billions are invested in wars. Governments have more appetite for that these days. It's a choice, innovation or destruction?
Just circling the moon and coming back would have been a big feat.
@@christiantabeling1184 …they did that first in 1968…Google “Apollo 8”
55 years - and NOT EVEN ONE NEW CLEAR PHOTO of the 6 launching pads that are on the moon.
88 spacecraft flew over the moon - 0 photos.
Where is the flag? Show me Babu.
Not blurry stains. Clear hi-res.
Never
A
Straight
Answer
We've got better pictures of the Mars rovers from orbit.
@@Janky2912 No we haven't. Taking pictures of small objects on the Moon is about resolution. Hubble or any other telescope cannot achieve the resolution to see the objects left on the moon as their mirror diameters are far too small.
Not sure where you get your information from as there are many photos by many Moon Orbiting Satellites.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter got some real good photos.
@@favesongslist show. launch pads. buggies. show. don't talk.
Didn't NASA loose all the telemetry data?
According to NASA
Misteriously displaced and cannot be found?!
Some of the props they used also turned up at boot fairs.
When I was a kid I watched the Apollo missions. I thought with normal progression I'd be going to the moon or mars in my lifetime. Not going to happen. Human advancement just isn't a priority. Wars and getting cetain folks rich seem to be the priorities.
because what you watched is from hollywood. the actual work is a lot harder. and now it is a lot harder to fake it again because there are satellite from other country too.
Unfortunately, you're probably right.
My response was to @mmad3130's comment, not the second one.
What do you mean by human advancement? I remember the ISS being hyped as the stepping stone to human advancement or something like that and it's mostly a jobs program and nobody cares.
you watched a TV show .
Return?
If it's so hard to go to the moon with todays technology then most probably moon landing never happened.
We realize that this accomplishment by your fellow man is very difficult for you to accept and comprehend, but yes, the SIX Apollo Moon Missions were a series of astonishing events in Modern History. Never underestimate or call into question what your fellow man is capable of doing, once he sets his mind to do something, in this case, something that is seemingly impossible. All around you are people who are far more intelligent and capable of doing remarkable things, than you and I Just because you have difficultly in understanding how something was accomplished, doesn't mean that it didn't happen no matter how you 'feel' about it.
@@apolloskyfacer5842 Dude,i know you "feel" that i'm not very inteligent for not beliving in the famous moonlanding but that doesnt mean it,s the absolute truth and by being certain of it ,by default this makes you more inteligent in any way whatsoever.
@@alexal5889 Here's a 'heads up' about where I was during the Apollo 11 Moon Landing.
I had a small part to play in that momentous event way back in 1969. I was 24 at the time and part of a team of contract electricians at the Honeysuckle Relay station and the nearby deep space tracking station at Tidbinbilla. near Canberra in Australia (ACT), when the first signals came through. The Parkes Radio Dish in NSW was also involved in the relaying work. Even though I was not one of the NASA personnel who were there as radio technicians, I was still part of the event. Our job was to make sure the electrical gird was secure. It was a most memorial day. Yes, I was one of the 400.000 people world wide who were involved,directly and indirectly in the mission to send man out to the Moon and to walk on the Lunar surface. and to get them back safely. We all had our part to play, even though my job was not quite the prestigious work the NASA personnel had. In a very small way, I was part of that history.
They can't get through God's firmament. So, the only thing that they can do is fake it.
@@alexal5889 Sadly for you Mr Alexal, Modern History is what it is. NOT what you think or wish it to be. And the SIX Apollo Moon Landing Missions are a series of astonishing events in that history. Best you get used to the Reality of it all.
There are several inaccuracies in this video but the ones that really caught my attention were that SpaceX Starship's 33 Raptor engines generate over 16 million pounds of thrust which is nearly twice that of the Saturn V rockets thrust. Also, SpaceX's Starship (with Super Heavy rockets) stands about 31 feet taller than NASA's Saturn V rockets.
I think the details are in the language being used. “Starship” is the upper stage of the fully stacked rocket. So Starship (or “SS”) sits atop the SuperHeavy rocket (or “SH”). So SH can get SS to NEO. Apparently SS can’t propel itself to the moon directly afterwards because of its incredible size. Remember it can accommodate 100 people or 100 tons…something like that. I think 100 people require a great deal of heavy life support equipment and materials, supplies, food etc.
Ok. Now we have big old SS up in orbit. So it has equipment for the moon. But it needs more fuel that couldn’t come along for the ride in addition with the moon equipment. So that may be why another 15 or so SS fuel tanker launches are needed in order to add enough fuel to send SS to the moon. I never understood any of this until thinking it through in the writing of this post. Please let me know if I’m not correct; I’m happy to edit it if I’m wrong…I just want to fully understand the problem that we have in terms of why SS can’t just be launched and fly to the moon in one shot.
The Super heavy block-one version presently generates 74.4 MN (16.7 million lbf) thrust. While Saturn IV generated 34.5 million newtons (7.6 million pounds). More than double.
SH is 71 m (233 ft) tall, while Starship is 50.3 m (165 ft).
Saturn 5 was 110.6 m (363 ft) tall.
So 35' taller than Saturn V.
Starship block-2 will have stretched tanks in both booster and second stage, with 35 Raptors in SH, 6 sea-level and 3 vacuum Raptors in Starship. This should increase real payload capacity from 45 mt [presently] up to 110 mt (242550 lb).
Block-2 is going to be used for the HLS contract unless block-3 arrives sooner than expected.
@@imconsequetau5275Dude, you got your data on the Starship Blk 2 backwards: It's going to have 6 vacuum engines and 3 sea level engines. As for the actual moon lander, that's going to need an almost entirely different engine configuration altogether because the moon has no atmosphere and a loose, rocky surface - no hardened landing pads there yet.
@@Bobcat665
Of course we know that Starship HLS is going to have high-mounted landing engines.
Where did you find definitive specs on block-2 ? I couldn't just trust any artist's depictions, so I concluded practically that SpaceX wouldn't risk the additional cost of 3 more vacuum Raptors until the recovery rate exceeded 85%, or 7 recovered Starships.
The tanker versions could easily exceed 3 gravity but you also want to rapidly accumulate a lot of experience with human rated designs.
So, using 3, 4, or 6 vacuum Raptors for tankers will depend on how much you are going to allow acceleration to exceed 3 gravity, and also on gravity drag equations. As the ship weight drops from ~2100 mt down to ~200 mt, you shut off all but one sea level engine in stages and then throttle down and shutoff pairs of vacuum Raptors to stay within load spec. The vacuum bell mass of shut-down engines, and how long they are dead weight, are factors.
@@Bobcat665
Of course we know that Starship HLS is going to have high-level landing engines. What's your source on block-2 vacuum engines? Artist depictions?
Thats when Holywood was born, the best film ever
Nope. The best Hollywood could do was 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is immediately recognizable as a fake: it’s obvious it was filmed on Earth, in Earth’s gravity. The Apollo videos were filmed in 1/6 g gravity, which cannot be replicated on Earth.
@@Hobbes746lol 😂 stahp
Yeah, Stanley Kubrick film
Learn to spell.
@@Hobbes746is there wind in space or only on the moon?
The reason NASA stopped sending men to the moon is that they realized that sooner or later the moon landings would get harder to fake😑🤣🤣🤣
if you can't make it, you fake it.
STOP THE PRESS ! It's has now been confirmed that the moon landing deniers actually have supernatural powers. They can change anything that they can't understand into a conspiracy theory !
But they did make it.
@@Ruda-n4h Gus Grissom and his lemon didnt think so ... then they died.
@@kaptainkrampus2856He was concerned about the poor quality of the work done by North American up to 1967.
@@Ruda-n4h ... and then he burned to death. And then all that poor quality suddenly went away and the replacement crew to the moon, just like that. Is that what you are trying to say, because I am trying to say something else ... c'mon, it's not funny anymore!
In 1.5 years Artemis will send a manned mission around the moon, if it happens I'll make a video of me eating my own shoe.
Imma check back with you in 1.5 years.
@@MilesLong556x69 And I want to know what kind of shoe it is already! =)
Yup. Artemis being behind schedule and over budget is a sign they are trying to do it for real. The fact that Apollo was always on schedule is a big red flag.
@@slbenson5206 "The fact that Apollo was always on schedule"
You sure about that?
@@slbenson5206 "Always on schedule"
- Apollo 1 setting program back by 1 year
- Lunar Module delays pushing back moon landing until mid 1969 instead of spring
- Apollo 13 explosion in April 1970 delays next flight until 1971
We have never been to the moon, not only has our computers and technology advanced, but so has our jet engines and thrusters. Plug we now have lighter and stronger materials. Yet they can't make it work
If we really did go to the moon in the 60s, we should have bases on Mars now, maybe even Starbucks.
It's wild when they say it wasn't in the budget...
People are asking why they do not return to the moon. How can you return to the moon if you never went to the moon
We did, so yeah..."return" is quite appropriate.
Actually a Funny thing happened going to the moon , the funny thing happened in low orbit.
You mean that horribly inaccurate conspiracy theory fan fiction? It's complete nonsense. Every second of it
@KornPop96 you know what ? Today I've seen a submarine that sank to the top of the sky .it's been on the news all day !
@@vidtech2630 I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. 😂
@@KornPop96 correct
@@KornPop96 It's on video tape guy. And way before photoshop. Even if you still believe -in Santa Claus- that the moon walks were real events, there is still no way the documentation isn't totally faked. Even the best, officially released footage, once you know what to look for, you can see it's a fraud.
Thanks for this. I know for SURE we have never been there.
You and I would make great friends.
This entire explanation video just made us all believe it didn't happen in the 1st place. Because all it is now is why we can't do it and give excuses. Excuses are lies.
This new plan seems like actually what it takes to go to the moon in the first place. Proving that the 60’s landing cannot stand up to scrutiny. Now we know.
The reason why is like Buzz himself said. We haven't gone back cuz we never went. End quote. You can take this video down now you know.
Buzz said, 'We never went back.'
@@Ruda-n4h That Flat earther is crazy
@@LevelEarthWD And of course, to be believable, you posted the video link where buzz said that smh
@kenmoser7333 I was told there would be people like you. Call me crazy. In the end we will see who in fact is crazy. Or stupid or vile. Not me. Not anyone with Jesus in their heart and minds. You're under the influence of things that you don't even know about. Get help before it's too late
@jackietreehorn5561 surely you can come up with something better than that Jackie. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be funny. Try harder next time
The studio went out of business, so we lost the technology.
What studio was that?
What technology was lost?
Brilliant
Michael Jackson's Moon Walk is the closest man has ever come to the Moon.
😁😁😁😁
Why did they write that song,Whitey on da Moon
We can keep dithering but it's going to hurt when the Chinese get to the moon ahead of Artemis.
It's only harder because they're doing it with 2.5% of the budget they used to go the first time. NASA doesn't build anything, it's all government contracts. Hard to get things built when you can't afford to pay anybody but the lowest bidder. This is why SLS is derivative of the shuttle rocket and Orion is a jazzed up Apollo era capsule.
Why?
We’ve never been before 😂😂
Except that we already beat them to the moon...in 1969.
ChangE project has been doing almost all experiments for mankind moon landing since 2013 while Artemis doing almost nothing so far.
What do you mean with "return"? There has never been somebody to the moon!
You know why it's so hard, they never got there in the first place.
It was so hard, it took $300 billion and the work of 450,000 people over 8 years to get to the moon.
LMAO. LOL.
Dude, there is a Japanese moon probe that took a picture of a landing site. There is also the communication evidence during the actual time period, where only certain parts of the globe could communicate with the astronauts (only possible when taking into account the moon's position around the earth).
Old Buzz couldn't put his hand on the bible and swear to god that he was there, instead buzz chose to argue with the cameraman "seen in another video clip" many years ago. I think that actually says it all about what it was really about.
-
The technology that existed at the time was not enough to handle such a project as landing on the moon.
It is very quietly spoken of these 3 gentlemen who died a very strange death "Grissom, White, and Chaffee". Here you can discuss what was actually behind it.
@@stigmichaelsomsrilundin8255 Buzz didn’t put his hand on a Bible because the person who wanted him to do that was a known charlatan. Buzz was lured to a venue on false pretenses, where Bart Sibrel accosted him, called Buzz a liar, ranted at him and THEN demanded, not asked, that he put his hand on a Bible.
Buzz was right in not indulging the demands of a lunatic.
So many excuses. I'm still on the fence that we actually landed on the moon. This video actually helps to validate my hypothesis that we did not land on the moon. Thanks Dr. Sutter
Let's start from a different perspective so that the context of your views or hypotheses are clear... do you truly believe people have been into space? If so, then when do you think we first went into space and why do you believe it?
Dr. Paul.
How did the astronauts in 1969 survive the Van Allen radiation belt? How are we going to get through this time?
They didnt . And they wont . 😅
@@martinattwood7801 Yes sir.
People like doctor Paul are supposed to be the smart ones. lol
@@martinattwood7801 🥴
google is your friend. It's amazing 30 years later and people still don't know how to use it to find information
@@russofam.1090 The Van Allen belts are very narrow, occupying a fraction of the path between the Earth and the Moon. Due to its trajectory and speed, the Saturn V rocket went through the outer portions of the belts in less than 2 hours, so the dose of radiation was within safety limits. Each mission flew a slightly different course in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was inclined to the Earth’s equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
Low energy electrons were the main ionising particles that the astronauts had to navigate through and not electromagnetic waves e.g. ultraviolet, infrared, gamma etc. Electrons can pass through living tissue without creating much damage as they are very small.
The command module’s outer hull was made of stainless steel and the (upper) heat shield from epoxy resin, which along with the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls was a very effective form of shielding against protonic radiation.
I want to know who was recording when they were landing 😂😂
There are no external recordings of any of the Apollo missions landing. However, each landing was captured by an interior static data acquisition camera mounted in one of the windows of the LM.
Yeah...?!
Exactly😂
@@yassassin6425 Great, concise answer.
@@Ruda-n4hso concise 😂 a camera battery from 1969 wont even turn on in 260° heat. One wouldn’t today either
BECAUSE…We’ve never been there. Buzz Aldrin even admitted it on camera!
SO NASA LIED TO THE WHOLE WORLD ABOUT THAT ROCKET ON THE MOON WITH NEIL ARMSTRONG IN IT WITH 2 OTHERS.....
LOL❗️❗️❗️
THAT MEANS.....THE RUSSIANS WON THE RACE TO OUTER SPACE ...NOT AMERICA THE LIAR ❗️❗️❗️
WE ALWAYS KNEW RUSSIA IS THE MOST HONEST AND MOST DETERMINED SPACE PLAYER......THAN HOPELESS, LYING AMERICA ❗️❗️❗️
Sorry, no. That's what we call a 'lie'.
We never went to the moon. The moon is a light, you can't land on a light. No one has ever gone higher than low earth orbit.
Have you ever looked at the moon through a telescope, through its different phases. It is clearly reflecting light from the sun.
Its a Transformer just like the Sun, solid or not, Lightbulb may be landable, but sure aint 240,000 Miles away! Looking with lame telescope or binoculars :)
The moon is not a light. Time to grow up.
Flat earther logic
I am an old fellow that started computing in 1968, the year before Apollo 10. These days the computing power of cell phones are quite literally millions of times faster (GHz instead of kHz) with millions of times the memory (Gbytes instead of kBytes). Just think about that for a moment. Hell, that took some programming skill.
There is a great you tube video about the software that did it. Search for the Apollo computer.
well yes, but there are reasons and motivation for more powerful computing. Though Apollo computers were very primitive, they rode a vehicle with a zillion horsepower. ***THAT*** is what is needed to go to the moon, otherwise we'll end up like Soviets trying to perfect the N1.
@@wrightmf It does not take much computing power to fly a rocket, or anything else for that matter.. It's little more than solving F=ma twenty times a second. Maybe x(t) = A1 cos(ω0t) + A2 sin(ω0t), where A1 and A2 are constants for landing the LEM. You _can_ get more sophisticated, but it's all the same complexity of equations that are solved every 50ms or so. Calculated desired position and use the difference from the current position to find the steering and thrust output and repeat the same thing over and over.
True. By the time I was studying in college in 1974, the computer room still used punch card for programming. Hard to believe moon landing in the 70s with the technology at that time.
@@dflaihk I started on an IBM 1620. Look it up.
Wikipedia -> Apollo 6 ->
first line quote :
"Apollo 6 (April 4, 1968), also known as AS-502, was the third and final *_UNCREWED_* flight in the United States' Apollo Program ..."
So yeah it "clearly" put the non existing crew in mortal danger
Sounds like he is explaining why i cant take my kids to Disneyland
It's too expensive and dangerous. 😂😂😂
I can’t remember they mentioning the Van Allen belt. Why? The Van Allen belt is the biggest obstacle getting to the moon because of the radiation.
simply look up 'Apollo missions passing through the Van Allen belts' and you will see that you are wrong...
@@SelwynRewes Get a clue, Sparky! WE NEVER WENT!
No human has ever been on the lunar surface!
@@daryllect6659 The orientation of the retroreflectors left on the Moon, such as to accurately reflect light back to their source to measure the Moon’s distance from Earth, meant that they could only be left by hand. The rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades, the dust from the rover falls back in a way only possible in a 1/6g vacuum and Japanese and Indian probes have photographed traces of the Apollo 11 and 15 landing sites.
The simple answer is they flew them as quickly as possible. Just like an X-ray machine the danger from radiation comes from the length of the exposure. If you just stand there in front of the machine for hours it can kill you, but a quick picture is safe. The Van Allen Belts are shaped like a doughnut that cling to the Earth on the sides and have no presence at the poles. So the safest route would have been to travel up from the pole, but this wasn't feasible because you would need considerably more fuel than launching from near the equator. So the compromise was to the launch the spacecraft at an angle to avoid as much of Van Allen Belts as possible. The Apollo missions took a minimum exposure trajectory. They were able to just skirt the first belt and traveled through the second one very quickly. The ship also had a degree of radiation shielding, or at least as much as they could put on there
@@Cdub.z There is no feasible shielding for cosmic radiation.
290 billion is nothing compared to what uSA spend on military each year
NASA's funding for 2024 is $25billion, the US military budget for 2024 is $842billion. It's strange so many people criticise the funding NASA get but are fine with the Military budget, or even go as far as saying NASA is just a scam to steal the funding they get when NASA is a division of the US Government which has a total yearly budget of over $6trillion, so either NASA has the government which they are a part of fooled and are stealing their funding without anyone else in the government figuring out it's a scam, or the US government is in on the scam, when the US government could steal a measly $25billion from taxpayers without even needing any story or scam to cover it, it's peanuts.
Is 290 billion the cost it would be today? Only reason why I’m watching this video. You see we’ve given Ukraine and Israel more than that in the last 2 years… but duh money is too much to go back der
Apollo 6 DID NOT HAVE ASTRONAUTS ABOARD MY GOOD FRIEND.
In 1969, we were lucky to get a clear picture on a TV set ... and they're sending pictures from the Moon.
When they went to the moon, they used Gold tin foil to get passed the Van Allen Belt, today you can’t find gold tin foil anywhere only Silver 😂😂😂.
The Apollo spacecraft did not need radiation shielding. The MLI (which you call “gold tin foil”) was there for thermal insulation, not radiation.
By 1962, we had measured the radiation level in the van Allen belts, and we found humans can safely travel through the belts. The radiation level in the belts is high enough to be a problem when you spend a long time there, but not high enough to cause immediate problems.
The Van Allen Belts contain mainly Alpha and Beta particles. Alpha will be stopped by a sheet of paper and the majority of Beta by a few mm of Aluminium. Of more concern would be the Hydrogen Nuclei in the denser parts of the inner belt but the Apollo spacecraft spent very little time in the inner VAB. You must remember that not only did the spacecraft hull act as shielding but so did everything that it contained, fuel, fittings, equipment, etc. The main challenge for the Artemis Program is that modern electronics and IC's are far more susceptible to damage from particle radiation than the electronics of the Apollo era. Rigorous testing of the electronics had to be carried out before a crewed mission. Interesting to note that you obviously believe NASA and Dr. James Van Allen (who advised NASA) when the tell you that these belts exist so perhaps you should look up James Van Allen's explanation of how to pass through them. Take care.
@@Hobbes746 What about the reconnecting of the landing module coming back from the moon surface, onto the orbital capsule where Collins had stayed ?
That's a tough one for 1960's technology. I believe Musk can't reproduce that in the 2020's, but in the 60's.. sure no problem.
It involves intersecting 2 trajectories on the fligh, with basic equipement, locking the 2 devices one-onto-the-other, managing decompression without any explosion, and letting the 2 astronauts back in the main capsule. Before setting course back to Earth.
All of that, successful on first try. Mmmmmmh..
@@goofygrandlouis6296 Musk has reproduced that many times in the 2020s, with Dragon capsules flying to and docking with the ISS.
The rendezvous of the LM with the CM was made as easy as possible. The CM orbited the moon. The LM undocked from it, and landed on a narrow strip of land right under that orbit.
The CM was in a fixed orbit, so they could predict when the CM would fly over the landing site. The radar on the LM could be used to verify this.
Once that verification was done, all they had to do was launch the LM at the correct time, and fly a preprogrammed profile that put the LM near the CM. A radar system could then be used to locate the CM and get nearer, and the final approach was flown manually by observing the CM through the windows.
@@goofygrandlouis6296 Rendezvous was studied extensively, and practiced on Gemini missions before the first Apollo mission. Then several Apollo missions flew the LM and re-docked it with the CM, first in Earth orbit, then in lunar orbit before Apollo 11. So “successful after lots of practice” is a more accurate description.
Boeing is the primary SLS contractor so I'm going to bet on odds of the door flying off mid flight and the project being grounded for years.
Shhhhhh…..I don’t want anything to happen to you. It seems very dangerous to be a Boeing whistle blower. 😂
😂
@JW-mb6tq I used to work for Boeing in their Everett Offices. My aunt, father in law and many friends are career Boeing (aunt was the executive assistant to the CEO for 3 CEOs). The information I have heard leads me to my bet.
Lost “institutional knowledge” is much like Grandma’s cornbread recipe that wasn’t written down and hasn’t been successfully duplicated despite many attempts.
A top boss of my past employer not only tossed out all the copies of the physically thick and comprehensive established Policy & Procedures books…in order to start over under a new administration…but also denigrated the vast knowledge base of the combined staff, the people with tried and true skills, the people with bright and shiny ideas… The results weren’t at all positive. The “cornbread” wasn’t fit for a hungry squirrel!!
😢Univac was a tech leader but laid off the engineers that kept it all running.
@@chuckevans2792
Very much like Boeing being an industry leader until the merger and they replaced the engineering staff with accountants.
Yeah, instead of buying a Mustang, I asked Ford for a new Model A. They couldn’t do it. Some here would say that was evidence that the Model A never existed.
I get your message but in this case there was absolutely no squirrel or recipe for space blue ribbons simply because they were not able to get to the moon but we're actually perpetrating the vinacular w slow motion technology... Yes no technology for none needed..pick any moonwalk sir and go to speed settings,2xfast is real time and there's nothing else to say about it, but it's the truth...no cap , no way ,ck my ch.🤔
@@petermcgill1315They could, but automobiles are massed produced, thus it would make it cost-prohibitive.
Space rockets like Saturn V aren’t, they were custom made and also very expensive, but very possible to replicate today.
In the sixties it was possible to dupe the public. Today it wouldn’t be possible to do so.
Apollo 6 was an unmanned spaceflight. The engine that failed was a J2 on the second stage. None of the F1 engines on the first stage ever failed.
cuz F1 never existed lol
@@Zorro33313 What makes you think that?
@mikepennington8088 because a million people in person watching a Saturn V go to the moon never existed in the deluded minds of two-bit trolls
@@captlazer5509 wut. noone's been watching Satrun V go to the moon lol. "in person" lmao
@@WatchesTrainsAndRockets "Occam's razor" principle, "burden of proof" principle, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" principle.
A few things which make me think they faked the landings; BTW - I taught the NASA myth for 20 years and it only after going down the 9/11 rabbit hole that I started seeing evidence to the contrary. My first model was of the Saturn V and I made it in 1970 when I was 10 years old. I lived and breathed the Apollo Missions for the next 40 years. Just answer some of these undeniable facts and I can go back to my model building.
1 Vacuum and Dust - sealing up doors, suit/helmet/gloves with so much dust - can't see how they do and no transcript explains
2 Photographic film - (kodak says that it was regular Ektachrome, same kind used in the spy satellites used in the late 60's and early 70's) no signs of damage by degassing, radiation, extreme temperature range
3. Amazing track record: - The number of tests required now before a crew is allowed to travel is ridiculous
Only 13 actual launches of Saturn 5 - 3 without crews
6 successful LM landings and lunar launches/docking. ( only actual practice of LM was when Apollo 10 crew detached, practice manuevering crafted and docked)
100 percent survival and with no immediate or chronic health problems -
All Apollo Splash downs were within 4 km of predicted LZ despite skip re-entry techniques - Apollo 13 was 1.85 km from predicted.
Apollo 8 was the 4th launch of a Saturn V and was planned to orbit Earth and instead it left Earth orbit for the first time, tried lunar orbit insertion for the first time, return to Earth as scheduled and landed 2 km from pick up site. They were also the first to test heat shield with Lunar return speeds of 40 000 km per hr, where as the Low Earth Orbits re entry speeds are only 28 000 kms .
4. On schedule - 8 years and 2 months from sub-orbital flight lasting 15 minutes to actually walking on the moon. Not bad for a time when 8 tracks, Beatles, Andy Griffith show were all the rage, computers were the size of boxcars and disco had yet to happen.
5. 1000's of Beautiful framed pictures - despite no view finder, no bracket shots .
6. Apollo solved how to build a dependable heavy lift rocket, space suits that worked for excursions, a LM that worked every time, a spaceship that regulated the heat and protected from cosmic radiation and a heat shield that could handle 40 000 km /hr re-entry speed. Unfortuately they are still re-inventing these things 55 years later.
7. There has been no 3rd party confirmation of the landing sites. China and India if they have confirmation of a fraud are keeping it on the down low. NASA's Lunar orbital pictures don’t count.
8. Laser reflectors on the moon isn’t proof. Unmanned probes can do this.
9. Lost - Most original evidence, telemetry and video tapes has been lost, the rocks are still being carefully looked after but I am told it is virtually impossible for a person to do a forensic analysis to confirm providence because you have to apply to get them and explain why you want them.
10. The furthest away from Earth’s surface since Apollo’s moon missions has been when they fixed the HST and were 570 kms away from Earth in 1993
11. 6 trips to the moon and of the thousands of photographs, only a handful of them show Earth, while none show the stars. Oh Yeah ! would it have killed them to leave a telescope on the moon?
These astronauts walked on the moon Date Location
Apollo 11 Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, 7/16/1969 Sea of Tranquillity
Apollo 12 Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, 11/13/1969 Oceans of Storms (Surveyor 3)
Apollo 14 Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, 1/31/1971 Littrow Crater
Apollo 15 David Scott, James Irwin, 7/30/1971 Censorinus Crater
Apollo 16 John Young, Charles Duke, 4/16/1972 Descartes Highlands
Apollo 17 Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt. 12/7/1972 Marius Hills
Apollo 18 cancelled Copernicus Crater/Shcroters
Apollo 19 cancelled Hadley Rille
Apollo 20 cancelled Tycho Crater (Surveyor 7)
and these astronauts orbited the moon
Apollo 8 Frank Borman, Bill Anders, Jim Lovell
Apollo 10 Tom Stafford,
Apollo 11 Michael Collins
Apollo 12 Dick Gordon,
Apollo 13 Jack Swigert, Fred Haise, (Jim Lovell) 4/11/1970
Apollo 14 Stuart Roosa
Apollo 15 Al Worden
Apollo 16 Thomas Mattingley
Apollo 17 Ron Evans
@@SelwynRewes Copy and paste much?
You're just not a techie and therefore can't explain things. So don't start with your model. For example: Any photographer can explain why you can't see stars in daylight. Or ask AI.
All this information confirms that we never went to the moon in the first place.
14 astronauts died on Shuttle missions. Makes Apollo missions look pretty safe in comparison.
It's all in comparison. From the first launch on April 12, 1981 to the final landing on July 21, 2011, NASA's space shuttle fleet flew 135 missions, helped construct the International Space Station and inspired generations. There were 14 missions total during the Apollo Program (1961-1972). Again. 135 to 14.
@@apolloskyfacer5842 good point! The space shuttle was an incredibly ambitious project that on the surface seems important because it never went to the moon or did anything astoundingly groundbreaking. I wish NASA was still that ambitious today.
Yes you said it correctly NASA hasn't ever been to the Moon or anywhere else in space but only in orbit around the earth.
@@TheEndokuken Now lets have a think about this. Do I believe some random nobody dude on the internet giving his opinion that all SIX Apollo Moon Landings didn't happen ? Or do I accept what Modern History tells me about it all. ? I think I'll go with Modern History if you don't mind. Sorry. Well I'm not really. 🤣
Only 2 of 4 orbiters were destroyed. Sounds like a nice safety record...😂
It’s hard to go back…
…to a place you’ve never been….but it sure was a feel good distraction from 58 thousand dead teenagers in Vietnam 🇻🇳… wasn’t it 😮
I was a high school National Science Foundation intern at Goddard Space Flight Center when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. A few thoughts to consider after watching the film:
1. We are no longer racing the Soviets, but we are racing the Chinese who are hell-bent on colonizing the Moon.
2. Returning to the Moon requires national will and resolve. For that the U.S. needs leadership which is sorely lacking
3. In the 60s the Apollo project was primarily a singular American project. Today we can collaborate with Europe, Japan, India and yes even Russia and many more. We don’t have to do it all ourselves
4. The Apollo program cost a fortune but the technological spin-offs were enormous.
5. Exploring and colonizing the Solar System is a high priority for Mankind and will energize and motivate millions of people, particularly our young to aspire to great achievements at a time when they are lost and confused about the most basic things and values. We are wasting trillions on silly endeavors which could be used to move humanity to heights we can now only dream of.
I could go on. Thank you for the film. And Godspeed
Wow. Just wow. You should study harder and read less propaganda. We never went! Period. It’s physically impossible and will never happen.
@@Ajaxx827wow, you’re just asserting something as fact and insulting someone who made a thoughtful and interesting post and who has a background in science.
@@Will_SchrankI thought it was positive to a better future... there is always programs in programs.
@@mrchow7517 That was true when Mark Twain said it, and it’s still true today.
Sorry you are totally wrong.
Russia were miles ahead of us in every aspect of the space race!
People don't give up trying, just because one country did it! If Russia could have put a man on the moon then and now, they would have done so, there's trillions of minerals waiting to be had.
Funding is NOT the issue.
The Van Allen belts and space radiation are!
Russia and China have sent Landers to the moon at less than $200million, we spent $10 Billion just on the JWST, with zero payback.
The moon is rich in Helium 3 which has a current retail of more than $140 million per tonne!!!
Even if we spent 10 Billion sending a mining crew to the moon, we could recoup that money back in Helium 3, in no time.
Truths are short and simple......
"Space maybe the final frontier but its made in a hollywood basement" - Californication RHCP
So Anthony Kiedis said so. What's your point?
Are you that dim that you can't even understand a metaphor by the Red Hot Chili Peppers?
You know NASA itself is the origin of such a theory. It was all about destroying interest in this place that contains high tech remnants of an ancient society. Brookings Report/Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. You've got to read the entire documents because the summations give you the wrong/false impressions.
@@yassassin6425 not a metaphor, they knew the truth
@@dpackman
*_"not a metaphor, they knew the truth"_*
It’s a song about the allure of Hollywood and being famous, but acknowledging the dark side to such a Faustian pact. Californication is a song about the underbelly of American society. There’s deceit, plasticity, and desperation under the facade of the American Dream. The lyrics reflect these extremes - both the elaborate gilded nature of it all and the darkness underneath. In essence, it’s a song about the rot that lies just underneath the surface. Californication is a particular ethos packaged as a cultural commodity and broadcast throughout the world in order to penetrate into other cultures. In addition to exploring the all pervasive nature of this, he observes the shallow attitude of Hollywood and celebrity fame and the desire of the entire world to join in on it. He highlights the superficiality of the packaged California dream using Hollywood as an example of the phony illusion created. The suggestion that a distorted reality is getting closer to a farfetched sci-fi/fantasy is a disturbing notion that the song broaches. The idea that something as vast as space could be artificially manufactured in a cramped basement highlights the truly limitless scale of Hollywood falsities. The sadness evoked by imagining that there is nothing beyond us, and nowhere left to explore, matches the overall melancholic tone of the song.
"The thought of Hollywood controlling the perception of the entire world has larger and more accurate implications than daft conspiracy theories about the moon landings". Anthony Kiedis (September 2000).
Do you also take the following line literally?
"Alderaan's not far away, it's Californication"
Seriously how dim do you have to be that someone has to explain an Anthony Kiedis lyric to you ffs, because you are incapable of interpreting it for yourself?
Yeah lets listen to musicians on literal rocket science... congrats, you played yourself
“Because we never went there” Buzz Aldrin
No, Aldrin didn’t say that. He answered the question of “why haven’t we been back for such a long time” with “because we didn’t go”, i.e. because we decided not to go back, but spend our money on other things instead. Watch the whole interview, instead of the misleading cut presented by moon landing deniers.
@@Hobbes746 @Hobbes746 the impossible moon landing in 68. No way to descend to the lunar surface even if you're still alive after passing through the radiation belt. Because there's no atmosphere and you'd have to ride the tip of a rocket flame at 3000 miles per hour without losing your balance. Even Elon Musk hasn't managed that yet.
@Hobbes746this is your best example of coping?
@Hobbes746 Always easier to convince someone of a lie rather than they’ve been lied to. Why did NASA delete all of their supposed moon landing data? I suppose you got all of your Covid vaccines too. Lol 😂
@@Dmaj089 That's probably an example of you not dealing with the truth.
Arthur C. Clarke commented on the Space Shuttle program, describing it as a camel -- that is, a horse designed by committee. He'd mentioned that the program had Federal legislators arranging to have parts built in their districts to provide jobs for their constituents, and that the shuttle design was so poor it "strained its guts to work."
I was very surprised when I asked Chat GPT if anyone has ever drilled a hole on the moon and found out no space mission has.
And you do really "believe" ? A code programed from humans and humans have subjective view of situations....🤔 I don't know what do you believe, but i would be very very sceptical even for A.I. and if is manipulative,so yes there is a debate if humans step on moon BUT even the moon landing arguments have many many plot holes, so the bottom line is something subjective, unfortunately after all this they make the public opinion to doubt for something but we really don't know what they get if they make people believe false hypothesis, so the final bottom line is all we must sceptic with the non moon landing sceptic theory....!!!!
Mate, just stop talking about it, you're bringing it on top
They’re waiting for Ai to get good enough to make a video of them going back before they pretend they went back again
❤
You have to admit it's a decent movie so part two is on Mars ... One day yes one day we're going to the moon maybe 🧐
Now we know why they have to tell people in todays world on why drinking antifreeze is a bad idea. People be out here believing everything on the internet except the actual rocket scientists
Problem number one : Stanley Kubrick is dead
Not a problem. He couldn't have helped them.
Money laundering at its finest!!!
2/10 for correctly spelling possesive "its" with no apostrophe. Content: 0/10.
@@therealzilch
@@whatsyurprob158 Klaatu barada nikto.
The 60's and 70's were so romantic. All we cared for was the moon. It's hard to believe now
Common Sense mandates that it is much easier to perform a moon landing in a Hollywood studio Then broadcast on a TV set. Getting there in reality is yet to be achieved.
Is that so ! Well I never ! Strike me down with a feather ! Gather around everyone. Mr Kelvinring here is going to rewrite Modern History ! He's going to be famous ! FAMOUS I say !
It seems so hard to do it now because they never done it in the first place we live in a world full of lies and deceptions
13.3% of the federal budget goes to the military, 12.7% to education, 0.3% to Nasa.
And social programs? Servicing the debt costs more than our military right now.
@@billblake5177 the fact that your military gets more funding than education and health care is stupid. Defund it, if it was lowered by even 1% it would be a huge boost for social programs, if I was American I'd want it cut by 5% with that 5% going into heath and education.
Even 0.3% is a huge waste
Nasa JPL have some pretty significant inventions which are in daily use all over the world. From Anti-corrosion coatings to camera sensors. Definitely worth gathering some refrenece material before claiming that 0.3% is a huge waste... Now the US DOD they like to waste money including a standby airline and the ARFC... I know where I'd rather my tax money went.
That's enough for Hollywood
Is it me, or does this Artemis thing look like a disaster waiting to happen? There is so much that could go wrong with such a complicated approach.
Before Artemis starts it will be in the museum as an oldtimer
Just spend a couple of minutes using open-AI or another artificial intelligence application and ask for definitive schedules for when the next moon and moon landing will occur. You have to really spend some time cornering them with this question. You'll find that there is no date set.
Er, so what?
A big part that had to be done was the development of the parallel titan for delivery of a nuclear warhead.
Why.....?
Because we were never there, sadly.
Stanley Kubrick's moonlanding copyright issues 🤣🤣🤣
Because we never went
because we never went 9 times....
Orbital mission
Apollo 8 Frank Borman, Bill Anders, Jim Lovell Dec 1968
First landing dress rehearsal
Apollo 10 Tom Stafford, John Young, Eugene Cernan 5/19/1969
Astronauts who walked on the moon Date Location
Apollo 11 Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, 7/16/1969 Sea of Tranquillity
Apollo 12 Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, 11/13/1969 Oceans of Storms (Surveyor 3)
Apollo 14 Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, 1/31/1971 Littrow Crater
Apollo 15 David Scott, James Irwin, 7/30/1971 Censorinus Crater
Apollo 16 John Young, Charles Duke, 4/16/1972 Descartes Highlands
Apollo 17 Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt. 12/7/1972 Marius Hill
Astronauts who orbited the moon in the Command module
Apollo 11 Michael Collins
Apollo 12 Dick Gordon,
Apollo 13 Jack Swigert, Fred Haise, (Jim Lovell) 4/11/1970
Apollo 14 Stuart Roosa
Apollo 15 Al Worden
Apollo 16 Thomas Mattingley
Apollo 17 Ron Evans
We went to the soundstage where they faked it at least 6 tomes.
@@BadAtTeaDude correct... the actors performed the landing scenes 6 tomes on the 'sound'stage erected on the moon by technicians sent on previous secret missions. These actors trained for years to perfect the fakery...
Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, 7/16/1969
Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, 11/13/1969
Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, 1/31/1971
David Scott, James Irwin, 7/30/1971 John Young, Charles Duke, 4/16/1972
Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt. 12/7/1972
@@SelwynRewesI guess you’ll believe anything huh ?
We didn’t go to the moon and it is impossible to go to the moon for many reasons, including the Van Allen Belt.
Incorrect. The radiation level in the van Allen belts is low enough that humans can travel through them safely, if they don’t spend too much time in the belts. The Apollo missions traversed the belts in only 3 hours.
There’s nothing impossible about going to the moon. All of the arguments used by the moon landing deniers fall apart on examination.
@@Hobbes746 stop lying to real humans Mr. Bot.
@@mydogjesus Everything I’ve said is verifiable reality. Your attempt at censorship means you know this.
Here are the words of Dr. James Van Allen himself, the man after whom the belts are named and the man who advised NASA during the Apollo Program: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." Dr. James A. Van Allen.
@Hobbes746 you speak lies.
Coz u have never been there
Money as the excuse is the weakest excuse to be ever made up
@@eromoseleodibo2687facts
Capricorn One.
Cool movie. What's that have to do with anything?
Ole'Buzz told a little girl on camera.."CAUSE, WE NEVER BEEN"
Stop parroting what you've seen on a deceitful YT site. The claim former astronaut Buzz Aldrin admitted in a video there was no moon landing is false. The short clip has been taken out of context from a longer video in which he mentions successfully landing on the moon several times. The clip isolates his answer to a question about why no one has returned to the moon since 1972. Aldrin has written many books recalling his experiences on the Apollo 11 mission in 1969 and has spoken frequently about walking on the moon. 😎
Buzz is also nuts. 😂
Why does Neil Armstrong and buzz Aldrin have moons on the Hollywood walk of fame I thought only actors had stars on the Hollywood walk of fame?
They were somewhat great actors…starring in the first con of Apollo moon landing
Haha
"Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement" Red Hot Chili Peppers (Californication)
@@user-ox2xi6kk8o “Ding dang dong dong ding dang dong dong ding dang” - Red Hot Chili Peppers (Around the World)
Celebrities of philanthropic work also get nominated... Why is it so hard for you guys to use a simple search engine if not afraid of being wrong ? You guys would take the word of musicians and film directors over literal rocket scientists... I guess this is why they have to explain to people now days why it's a bad idea to drink antifreeze. people believe anything on the internet nowdays lol 😊
I know, we forgot how!
you forgot the stretched SRB's not just the engines inherited from the Shuttle. Talking of delays and bloated budgets you also omitted the white elephant in the room ... Boeing.
@tma2001 ... and old Shuttle OMS engines acting now as main engines of Orion service module. 😅 Thats why the thing cant move worth s....
If the rocket had to split into three capsules just to get there. How did they return to earth from the moon?
In one of the capsules.
Can't go back to were we've never been
Can we go back if we were there nine times and landed six times?
@@therealzilch I suppose so. Saw a video thats all.
@@shirleymental4189 Spread
Speak for yourself. I saw the live broadcast of Apollo 11, and I've reviewed a great deal of the other evidence. I also see no reason why they couldn't have done it, given that they had the knowledge, the technology, and the money to do it.
@@therealzilch OK fair enough.
@@shirleymental4189 Thabo
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Cheers from starry Vienna, Scott