Unfortunately its the same tech. Thats one reason why these races are so high profile. Anybody who can put a man on the moon can put an H-bomb *exactly* where they choose.
This is funny. However do remember, where would your country be at if it wasn't for all of the fantastic things America did? (Not downplaying the bad things we've done - but as a nation, we've done things that's changed the world for the better)
There kinda is oil on the moon and the U.S. has known about it for decades. There's an abundance of Helium-3 on the Moon surface, which is a high output fuel for fusion reactions. The Helium-3 on the Moon would produce more energy than all the petroleum on Earth. Even with something that valuable, the cost of shipping to Earth is prohibitive.
We'd just do nothing... That's why you need competition. If there's no competition, none of these countries would have any incentive to do anything. I cringe at woke peace activists. We are humans. Humans compete. Survival of whoever has the upper hand. That's how it always will be.
@@RS-ko9fx your mind(set) is so simple and incorrect. Co-operation and competition are both human features. One without the other will lead to impoverishment and worse.
@@eannamcnamara9338 Well everything in the show beginning with the launch of pathfinder (and probably sea dragon) is developed in a fantastical timeline so there's no point crying. The FAM universe is pretty much an impossibility after the establishment of Jamestown (though somewhat realistic to that point).
@@jacobdewey2053 It's still a universe i want to live in though. one where we have conquered the moon, mars, fusion and climate change, instead of floundering around like idiots
Maybe on Earth, but then I doubt scientists on the moon would ever find it productive to be as territorial there, cooperation is most beneficial for all parties involved
@@derp8575What would a permanent manned base in the Moon serve? A dry rock that has been studied for millennia is not priority over other interesting celestial bodies.
@@narajuna think more in the benefit of humanity than individuality. Increasing cosmological knowledge is way more important than loosing a few humans here and there although making them survive also increases the efficiency of the human race.
I would like the world to know that the budget for science and technology in Japan is very small, that it is done on a limited budget, and that failure is not tolerated.
They should first ask the Supreme Leader Aladeen if they should make their rockets pointy or not. Failure is deathly not tolerated by the Supreme Leader. 😂😅
yes, but the animation at 0.23 showing the Earth appearing from behind the moon has North America back to front. With Florida in the west and California in the east.
Added context - he meant that the tech they used at the time was now VERY outdated and decommissioned, and the government hadn’t prioritized spending the money on updating the tech since we won the space race
I'm an aerospace engineer and you are right. Unfortunately when it comes to engineering being right means nothing. Who's paying and what they want is everything.
how do you do it in that environment? Gravity well easier yes. But you gotta build bases, launch pads, avoid dust. Sounds like a better plan if it works. @@tonywilson4713
Chandrayan 3 strongly indicated that water just won't be on surface but under the lunar surface. Vikram(the lander) did a test on lunar surface by drilling into it and measuring the underground temperature. The result was quite interesting just a little below from surface the temperature dropped quite a lot.
Because the frozen water is supposed to be trapped in the crater where sunlight barely reaches and vikram drills on the surface of the moon. Nevertheless, the findings of drastic change in temperature within the depth of 10cm was quite an accomplishment. Kudos to India.🇮🇳🇮🇳
It is weird that in 1960s, we can land on the moon many times, like going to the back yard of our house. And we even play golf on the moon. And we could have REAL TIME VIDEO CONFERENCES among moon landing module, moon orbit module and earth. And we could automate lift off with the life support modules from moon to 300 miles up moon orbit like it is nothing, even if 1/6 of earth gravity. Those days, we have only mechanical switches and limited number of vacuum tubes. But 60 years later, we could not even do a proper lift off from earth. And we have IC that has billions of transistors and we have progressed so much in so many technological fronts.
Modern technology is in some ways more fragile. Sometimes a simple "update" can cause your phone more harm than good. Using simple 1960's electronics operated by brave men on a manned spacecraft (as opposed to an unmanned one) seems to have been a better option in some ways.
Hey do you know that cars back in the days use to be more durable and last longer than current modern cars which breaks down a lot. Can you guess why old cheap tech is better than current expensive advanced tech? The answer is greed, modern companies cut corners and make inferior products for maximum profits.
@@onsokumaru4663 also modern electronics have much smaller components which are far more sensitive to damage, even static electricity can damage a microchip beyond repair.
We can easily repeat Apollo. The question is why and what is the immidiate return on investment. In the run up to the peaks of Apollo program it was consuming over 2% of US GDP. The aim was to beat the Soviets and demonstrate who has the best rockets to lob the nukes. Apollo’s brief was to throw a few men & equipment to the moon, pick-up a few rocks, do some PR and come back. A single mission was no more than 2 weeks. This is very easy to repeat if there is nothing else to spend the money on. Upcoming manned moon missions are very different beasts. To see even a half a chance of a worthwhile return on investment, future missions must enable humans to spend more than a month or even years beyond earth orbit. This is complete uncharted territory when it comes to engineering life sustaining machine habitats.
Getting back to the moon in 2025 shouldn’t be that difficult. It should be easy if anything seeing that we did it back in 1969. We were far limited in technology back then.
@@derp8575you want to go up in faulty rocket be my guest, you can also cover the billions of dollars of wasted investment when the whole thing goes up in flames because dust shorted out one of the tiny computer chips that are more fragile than the technology used in 69
Look into the different moon missions. They were very risky. Lots of unmanned missions failed, especially in the beginning. Once the success rate improved manned missions began and eventually it was deemed safe enough to try a landing. “Safe enough” back then is not the same as now though.
Imagination: With access to near unlimited resources and scientific advancements thanks to space exploration, the earth will enter a new age free of greed and suffering. Reality: The organizations that successfully manage to harvest the boundless resources beyond earth will use their position to advance themselves and make their leaders the richest people the world has ever seen while the 99.999% still struggle under a new monopoly.
Its not as ludicrous as you think. In the 5th Century BC, the Greeks of Sicily, of example, minted coins which were such high standard of art and aesthetics that it would not be replicated again until the 17th century. It is one of many examples of cyclic nature of Human knowledge in the span of time. We try, fail, learn, forget, and repeat.
It's called esoteric knowledge. There were likely people who knew how to mint those coins again, but they sat on the knowledge and passed it down to their children, hiding it from the commoners. @@TheScimitar2
It's called esoteric knowledge. Same with ancient pyramids. The knowledge wasn't lost. It was concealed by those who want us living in ignorance. @@TheScimitar2
If is was so easy we did it in the 60's we wouldn't be talking like "when we finally get someone there" this renewed rush is feels like an admission the 60's landings never happened...
This video just proves to me that we never landed on the moon... your telling me that 50yrs later with all our technology we are struggling to land on the moon but they did it before computers were really useful tools.
Yep that's what I gather out of this video too. I still believe the research I've done about the original landings. I've even done the math now. 240,000 miles to the moon / 14 days / 24 hours per day = 715 mph. Or traveling the speed of sound for 14 days. Bigger question is with all these moon landings, why is there no footage from the moon's surface? Why is it all CGI?
We're not struggling to land on the moon. It's not like we are trying and failing? Nobody has TRIED to put humans on the moon since Apollo. It's still going to be a matter of testing. The next time we put humans on the moon, it will be with an ENTIRELY new technological structure - and it will still need to be tested. They've already started that process with the Artemis program - the next program with goals of landing men on the moon again. Artemis I has already flown. Artemis II plans to send humans around the moon. Artemis III plans to land humans on the moon again. It's a process. The people who put men on the moon during Apollo aren't in the business anymore, and if they were - they'd likely be so far out of the loop technology-wise that they would be little help. We aren't building a 1970s spacecraft. We are building a 2020s spacecraft. There is a difference, and it still requires testing and time. But to say we are "struggling" to land on the moon is just an absurd fallacy. Also - computers were EXTREMELY useful tools during the Apollo lunar landings. They could not have done it without them. That's just patent nonsense.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
We haven't attempted to land on the moon. If you climbed Mt Everest 50 years ago and have made no attempt to climb it again since, would it be fair for me to say, "you're struggling to climb Mt everest, therefore I don't believe you did it"? No. Also, it's "you're"; not "your". Ever time. You people are idiots.
It mostly comes down to who can develop the rockets to take a lot of payload to the moon to set up a colony, because it requires huge amounts of equipment to keep a colony running. Once SpaceX has the Super Heavy + Starship running, the US is going to have a huge lead over other countries in terms of the cost per kg of transporting to the Moon. Methane and oxygen can be made from lunar soil and water, so the Starship can be fueled from the moon. I simply don't see hydrogen rockets as viable because it is questionable whether they can be made reusable, since hydrogen embrittles the metal and it is so hard to store hydrogen for long periods of time. The speculation about taking helium-3 from the moon to power the Earth strikes me as a ludicrous idea. We already have wind and solar plus grid batteries which are cheap and scalable and have falling cost curves. Once you calculate the cost of developing helium-3 fusion reactors and transporting helium-3 from the moon to the Earth, there is no way that helium-3 energy is going to be cost competitive with renewable energy in the 2030s. Even on the moon, I doubt that helium-3 energy is going to be able to compete with solar panels + LFP grid batteries. Perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells are going to take the efficiency over 30% at commodity prices, so I don't see why any other type of energy will be used.
You're kind of refuting yourself there, amosbatto. 200 years ago, internal combustion engines were a ludicrous idea. 30 years ago, solar was a ludicrous idea. renewables have only become economically viable in the last decade or so. We're 1 or 1.5 decades from viable helium-3? Well, thats a similar time scale to what it'll take (assuming consistent funding) to establish solid lunar bases that are safe and reliable enough to support any kind of industry anyway, so that lines up pretty well. It takes 4 years to design and produce a car w/established tech. As any VC entreprenour can tell you, you can't set up a new industry by thinking in terms of next year's bottom line. Wind and solar are now great short to mid-term investments, and they will mature but they will never match the energy efficiency we had w/ internal combustion. To prepare for the next economic steps of the latter 21st century we'll need something with more oomph. The best candidate is clean fusion. We've made it work in the lab, now it needs to be scaled and industrialized.
Fast forward to April 2024 and Starship can barely get itself to orbit with zero payload. Now Elon is talking about extending the length of Starship... People dislike the guy, but I trust Bezos and Blue Origin in the long run more than I trust Musk and Spacex.
Some fairly serious scholarship has found it would be about as technically difficult and more expensive (plus a lot of dead bodies to explain) to convincingly fake a lunar landing than to just land there. Have you ever seen the movie Capricorn One? (featuring OJ Simpson at his finest!) How long did Jack Ruby live? No possible way would all those tens of thousands of workers have been able to keep that scale of a secret on that time scale if left alive. Sooner or later, somebody would go Deep Throat, write an anonymous book and retire to Tahiti, spill the T to a lover, find grandpa's journal in the attic, rent the room next to Ed Snowden's in Moscow... Thoeries that ignore human nature aren't worth a bean.
@@Ethan_RobertsYou're so asleep, you are defending your dream and not reality. This whole thing is a fraud. Always has been. You don't wanna see that because it will shatter your dreams and your world. So you are on every comment thread arguing and commenting to people who personally don't believe in the lie, as if you get wages to do so.
The moon landings are in fact real, it is an insurmountable truth. There is so much evidence in the form of photography, video and demonstrable experiments that it is impossible to disprove.
@@mrbigbankuchiface_3352 So true. The grown children that like to believe in 1960s moon landing movies get very angry when you tell them that the movie they all watched on TV was actually a movie.
When most people are willing to believe the lie, it's easy. One thing I noticed about NASA fans is that they watch a lot of tell-a-vision. Combine that with fluoridated water and vaccines and you have the perfect slaves. They willingly place their mind's into shackles.
Рік тому+20
Return to the moon? I'm not sure we ever went there in the first place.
I wasn't born when people walked the moon before, but it appears to have been just for show. Now this looks serious and I'll experience HD VR shots of the moon in a few years! If only I could help, I would work for free to see humans out of this well.
What people gotta realize is, you dont NEED to be able to get from Earth surface to Mars or beyond. It's incredibly pointless and wasteful and difficult. All you need, is a refueling base (and manufacturing facility, which can largely be automated) on the Moon. Once you can refuel on the Moon (or in low Lunar orbit, like at Gateway station), you can literally go ANYWHERE in the solar system. "Easily." All you need is to be able to get to the Moon, from Earth surface. Then everything else is unlocked with the same craft. It's actually apalling and insane that we "forgot" how to get to the Moon, after we did it in the 60's. We could literally have already gone to Mars before the 2000's It's prime evidence that civilization is NOT a direct upward trajectory, parts of knowledge and tech CAN fall behind.
I had always heard when funding ran out for these moon missions, it was because there was nothing on the moon. It was all rock, equivalent to what was on Earth. Modern tests of moon rock even proved that.
I partly agree with you. "You don't NEED to be able to get from Earth surface to Mars or beyond." I agree with that part, but you also don't NEED to get to Mars from lunar orbit, either. It would be just as easy to get to Mars from Earth orbit. You would just need to launch your spaceship to Earth orbit, and then send up refueling tankers to refill the spaceship fuel tank. Then, getting to Mars will only take 3 to 5 months with a full tank of fuel.
Yeah, also when you are on the moon, the Earth is locked in the sky in the same spot all the time. It's way more reflective than the moon, and way larger in the sky. A "full Earth" would be 50x brighter than a full moon on Earth. When the astronauts were on the moon, it would have been a half full "crescent Earth" in the sky. But they all forgot to look up with the camera! This was at sunrise on the moon, but you can still see the moon during the day on Earth, so the Earth should have been easy to see from the surface of the moon. It's like that "Don't look up movie"
@@theriverschool822 This is true. The same side of the moon always faces the Earth. If I recall, that's because the moon's face itself is more mass up than the dark side.
yes, and we only landed humans on the "light side" of the moon, so the Earth was always above them in the sky. Since we went to the moon during sunrise on the moon, we can conclude the Earth is located at roughly a 90* angle from the Sun. So the Earth should be half-lit by the sun and half dark from the perspective of men on the moon. A giant crescent Earth looming over you would be so amazing, never moving in the sky, no clouds or atmosphere to block it. You could build a moon base with a window that constantly looked at Earth as it shifted through daylight phases, but didn't move (much at least.) You know, Richard Nixon was the only president in office when humans have been on the moon. The same year of the Richard Nixon scandal, right after his re-election, the moon got really boring. Just a bunch of rock I guess. No other presidents wanted to keep it up after Nixon. We had five human landings on the moon in that short time though, but not one person thought to look up. I guess I've never worn a bulky space suit though. @@gamesthatiplay9083
That is an incorrect statement. You do not have any proof to back it up. The moon landings are in fact real, it is an insurmountable truth. There is so much evidence in the form of photography, video and demonstrable experiments that it is impossible to disprove.
No countries have put any men on the moon yet. I have been waiting to hear a news of human landing on the moon before I die. I am very much hopeful that India will be the first country to put men on the moon.
That is an incorrect statement. You do not have any proof to back it up. The moon landings are in fact real, it is an insurmountable truth. There is so much evidence in the form of photography, video and demonstrable experiments that it is impossible to disprove.
The tech that got to the moon was hyper-focused on getting to the moon. Then the funding stopped. That proven old tech would now have to be built up again, or we work on new tech. The current space tech is excellent for other space missions -- probes, telescopes, orbiting stations -- but long-term moon missions require a whole fresh branch of related tech. You don't just dust off an old Saturn V, stuff it full of iPads, and off you go.
@@Bniooh bullsht, you also dont destroy the technology that sent people to the moon for the reason that in the future people would wanna go back there. The reason they use "we destroyed the technology" excuse is because its eaiser to explain it than having to prove they can go there again. Delusional boi.
The budget to go to the moon was huge. At it's height, the moon program was spending 20% of the USA's GDP. It's significantly lower now and the tech is so different that they can't even use any of the tech from the Saturn V. Everything has to be designed from scratch.
Why should it be easier? We stopped making them for 40 years. If you stopped doing something for 40 years, can you suddenly pick it back up? Probably not easily. Now imagine being a 100,000+ person organization
They never sent human to the moon. It was all faked to compete with Soviet Union. Now they need to do that again to prove they are better than China. But times has changed they don’t have that much money anymore.
They never went to the moon. It was in a Hollywood studio and/or Greenland at best. It is impossible for man to go to the moon and outer space...and Yahweh do exist. There are limits set for all creation
Nowhere, they'd argue about who's right and who's wrong. Meanwhile, while they're on a race, they're actually doing their best. Human is not social mammal. It's competitive mammal. We don't live in a society, that's bs to control you. We live in a constant competition of survival of the fittest.
If the US and the USSR have been collaborating for space exploration alongside other major countries since post WW2 and Cold War didn't exist, we most likely would have not only colonized the Moon by now, but Mars also. Instead what we got today is another "race" to the Moon.
If you read up on this it’s just simple logic. The knowledge and tech exists but the actual rockets and manufacturing plants are no more. Simply a matter of costs.
@@mahalallel2012 after the cold war, there seemed to be no reason to carry out such expensive expeditions and there were budgetary limitations. Sending a human to outer space is way more expensive and riskier than just sending a probe. Newer tech can make it more affordable and for a longer time to actually carry out sufficient research in outer space.
That is an incorrect statement. You do not have any proof to back it up. The moon landings are in fact real, it is an insurmountable truth. There is so much evidence in the form of photography, video and demonstrable experiments that it is impossible to disprove.
What a shocker that you watch tell-a-vison programming and also believe that we landed on the moon. Correlation is most definitely causation in that regard. @@Pr0toPoTaT0
Two weeks of lunar night without sunlight or Earth noise -- an opportunity for important work -- important for knowledge gained and human survival. The far side of the moon is the only logical place to have a radio astronomy base, and one of the best places to watch for possible incoming asteroids. We still have large asteroid come close to earth that are not seen until PASSING Earth.
That is an incorrect statement. You do not have any proof to back it up. The moon landings are in fact real, it is an insurmountable truth. There is so much evidence in the form of photography, video and demonstrable experiments that it is impossible to disprove.
Not really, everyone is concentrating on the South Pole where the water ice is located, the Apollo landings happened across the equatorial region, and those landing sites were already independently verified and seen from lunar orbit by orbiters of other nations like India.
@@DonGivani More pollution? I get a headache when people without even the most basic crtiical thinking skills apply their limited, terrestrial thinking to space exploration. NEWSFLASH: Just like there is no "lighting a fire" on other planets, there is also no "pollution" on other planets. Seriously, these folks who say they realize how precious Earth is are themselves the ones that don't realize just how precious Earth is.
if usa really landed on moon with men ..why is it hard for them do now with advanced tech , did they magically forgot or lost how to send a man to moon ?....
1) Funding is an issue 2) The people that did it in the 1970s aren't in the business anymore - - and even if they were, they are so far out of the technological loop that they would be zero help. 3) They didn't forget how they sent humans to the moon DURING THE 1960s AND 1970s. Technology has advanced a bit since then, so they aren't going the same way. The hardware they will be using will be ENTIRELY new. The methods by which they will go will be ENTIRELY different. The people who are working on will be doing what they are doing for the very first time. This is just a consequence of taking an operating program and shutting it down for over 5 decades. The technology is entirely different. The people working on it are an entirely different group of people working with entirely different technology. They aren't going to the moon for the first time, but for all intents and purposes, they are doing SOMETHING for the first time - - - and that is putting a man on the moon *_with and entirely different subset of technology and equipment._* That's not an easy ask. In other words, the people who are working on putting man on the moon are indeed doing it for the very first time for all intents and purposes. That in no way means that an entirely different generation of scientists and engineers didn't do it 5 decades ago in a different way using an entirely different infrastructure of technology.
It's not NASA's fault. They rely on federal funding. In 1970s money, NASA's funding is tiny compared to what it was during the Apollo era. All these things cost money.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg They are spending multiple times the amount of money SpaceX is on their next generation rocket which is an entirely new design as opposed to SLS literally recycling 80s and 90s rocket parts on a rocket which only has reusability on the SRBs. They need costly refurbishment after each flight after landing in the salty ocean water among other reasons. Had they just gone with a new rocket design which could land itself like Starship or in part like Falcon 9 then the costs would be millions per launch not billions. They could do more with that "70s money" you talk about but I can agree the funding is very low. Then again, I wouldn't want to be funding a program recycling parts for a rocket that costs billions per launch throwing away a third of the rocket. Also, if it was too risky or dangerous to use a rocket that can land itself then why let SpaceX launch astronauts to the ISS on Falcon 9 for them? They're also even contracting SpaceX to make a lunar lander variant of Starship for the very same astronauts that fly in SLS to the moon, so they clearly do think it is safe. The cause behind SLS's slow pace is because of the bureaucratic design of NASA and the fact that they don't think they can back out of their design now.
well it costs allot of money to get to the moon in the first place. of cours you need some kind of benifit for that investment. you wouldnt want your country to waste your tax money for no reason dont you ?
...doesnt work like that, the saraha is how it is because of where it is on the planet ... to change that would change the enviroment on the entire planet ..
And yet people say the moon landing was fake. Will they say the moon's colonization is fake? Also, regardless of who explores space: It should benefit the human race as a whole, not just a specific country. This is the one time where all of us, as the United Nations should stand together. We don't know what's out there... and it would be better to stand as one united species.
you be like:we welcome usa build military bases on our land,but we cant let Chinese shipping in their sea,we cant torelate any behavoir of a country destroy our country land.(excpet my american dad)
5:55 You can't be serious... Have you seen the video of India's "moon landing"? It looks like a galaga ship from a video game lol. Notice how the motion is completely unrealistic and no dust is even kicked up when landing. Keep in mind that the moon has extremely low gravity so dust would be kicked up easily! Also... what were they filming with??
This is far better competition than firing missiles and bombs against each other
I believe even in space, we'll be shooting missiles at each other
They will be doing this in space soon 😂😂
@@pingshien91They already had.
Unfortunately its the same tech. Thats one reason why these races are so high profile.
Anybody who can put a man on the moon can put an H-bomb *exactly* where they choose.
@@pingshien91I’m mean to be fair that’s gonna be way cooler
make sure they bring duct tape for the Boeing parts lol
Hahahahaha 😂
1969 landed on the moon , it is a laughing stock, ha,ha,ha......!
21st century, US still can't send man landed on moon. It really a laughing stock..!
😂🤣
1969 landing is real. Period.
Don't forget the aluminum foil.
Just tell America that there is oil on the moon and they will send their army up there to "liberate" it.
This is funny. However do remember, where would your country be at if it wasn't for all of the fantastic things America did? (Not downplaying the bad things we've done - but as a nation, we've done things that's changed the world for the better)
There kinda is oil on the moon and the U.S. has known about it for decades. There's an abundance of Helium-3 on the Moon surface, which is a high output fuel for fusion reactions. The Helium-3 on the Moon would produce more energy than all the petroleum on Earth. Even with something that valuable, the cost of shipping to Earth is prohibitive.
@@momentary_ Americans will rush to the moon when they fear someone else going there and claiming resources until then that will be sleeping.
Freedom 🦅
@@1.blazeIT总有一群美国人，像你一样自以为是，放心这个地球少了你们只会更美好
Imagine what we could achieve if we shared our resources instead of trying do it all on our own.
The ISS, for instance…
We'd just do nothing...
That's why you need competition. If there's no competition, none of these countries would have any incentive to do anything.
I cringe at woke peace activists. We are humans. Humans compete. Survival of whoever has the upper hand. That's how it always will be.
@@RS-ko9fx your mind(set) is so simple and incorrect. Co-operation and competition are both human features. One without the other will lead to impoverishment and worse.
because some of them want to conquer
Maj0ritty 0f us Indians can't aff0rd 2 meals a day
Getting my popcorn ready for the lunar war saga
Literally Star Wars in our time
Haha. I also get my popcorn😅
It will never happen. Sorry.
This is going to be the true WW3, battle for the moon
"For All Mankind" here we come
every time i watch FAM i cry knowing i don't live in their world
@@eannamcnamara9338Get a grip.
😂😂😂😂For all mankind😂😂😂😂 Are you deluded?
@@eannamcnamara9338 Well everything in the show beginning with the launch of pathfinder (and probably sea dragon) is developed in a fantastical timeline so there's no point crying. The FAM universe is pretty much an impossibility after the establishment of Jamestown (though somewhat realistic to that point).
@@jacobdewey2053 It's still a universe i want to live in though. one where we have conquered the moon, mars, fusion and climate change, instead of floundering around like idiots
Looks like the moon is going to be something else to fight over
Atleast no one lives there tho
Maybe on Earth, but then I doubt scientists on the moon would ever find it productive to be as territorial there, cooperation is most beneficial for all parties involved
If we really went to the moon then we would have permanent manned bases by now. Whoever establishes the first base will have control.
@@derp8575What would a permanent manned base in the Moon serve? A dry rock that has been studied for millennia is not priority over other interesting celestial bodies.
@@ingGSmassive mineral deposits
Space exploration is for the benefit of all irrespective of which country explores it. Hope this brings the world together and put all enmities aside.
Is this verified Truth? Put food on plates? What about Cancer Patients? Inmates?
We would all get along well if it wasn't for the 1% turning us against each other.
@@narajuna think more in the benefit of humanity than individuality.
Increasing cosmological knowledge is way more important than loosing a few humans here and there although making them survive also increases the efficiency of the human race.
@@user-io7sh7nx7c I see no way this benefits humanity.
Lmao
I would like the world to know that the budget for science and technology in Japan is very small, that it is done on a limited budget, and that failure is not tolerated.
Same here in India too
While INDIA has done it in less than half budget of Japan
They should first ask the Supreme Leader Aladeen if they should make their rockets pointy or not. Failure is deathly not tolerated by the Supreme Leader. 😂😅
this is north korea right?
@@ProLab. and neither would have done it without our technology
That was some really smooth animation of the various moon missions. The soft landing animation was outstanding 👏
I can do better
yes, but the animation at 0.23 showing the Earth appearing from behind the moon has North America back to front. With Florida in the west and California in the east.
😆👍🏼yeah. Soooo soft landing in the studio👏🏼😆
I really hate people like you who dont believe the moon landing
and no dust was displaced how great to do that, can only be done in Hollywood
Amazing work 👽👽👽
wait till they realize they are already on mars, but shh you didn't hear it from here.
"I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore."
-Don Pettit (NASA astronaut)
Added context - he meant that the tech they used at the time was now VERY outdated and decommissioned, and the government hadn’t prioritized spending the money on updating the tech since we won the space race
@@calebjenkinson7035 how would you know what he meant to say?
WELL SAID. Truth told in plane sight
Not even light can go to the moon in a nanosecond
Because we never went in the first place.
SLIM, congratulations on landing on the moon!
Thank you, JAXA!
What's so happy with an non-operational rover?
@@Chickenworm9394it's to appreciate the work done to make it reach its destination, failure is inevitable in space
It still landed successfully @@Chickenworm9394
What these countries are trying to achieve is bigger than anyone's ego. It's the progression of the human race.
not really
@@BigBoss-sm9xjwe’re destined to become a spacefaring civilization. So yes, yes it is.
Though all countries are only thinking about their personal interests but that's also true
progression to what?
Just ego
It's simple. Moon to Mars exponentially easier than Earth to Mars. The shuttle can be fundamentally different. It just needs to be assembled there.
I'm an aerospace engineer and you are right.
Unfortunately when it comes to engineering being right means nothing.
Who's paying and what they want is everything.
it's simple, they are getting paid to lie to their people. no one ever landed on the moon.
how do you do it in that environment? Gravity well easier yes. But you gotta build bases, launch pads, avoid dust. Sounds like a better plan if it works. @@tonywilson4713
Easier yeah if you ignore a solar radiation low gravity that destroy bones and muscles oh yeah and the ridiculous temperatures
you are correct... plus the moon can be used as a military base for ICBM launches.
Chandrayan 3 strongly indicated that water just won't be on surface but under the lunar surface. Vikram(the lander) did a test on lunar surface by drilling into it and measuring the underground temperature. The result was quite interesting just a little below from surface the temperature dropped quite a lot.
Because the frozen water is supposed to be trapped in the crater where sunlight barely reaches and vikram drills on the surface of the moon. Nevertheless, the findings of drastic change in temperature within the depth of 10cm was quite an accomplishment. Kudos to India.🇮🇳🇮🇳
India 😂
@@iqbalbhq6884chuslim 😂
@iqbalbhq6884 Iqbal🤡
Lunar soil is very poor conductor of heat
Great video.
Please, cotinue doing reports and investigations like this.
But but but Trump said/did something stupid! Need I say Kim Kardashian? And look, Kanye West!
Great video, but no new video from the moon in this video?
Investigation? LMAO, It's all property of the AP!
It is weird that in 1960s, we can land on the moon many times, like going to the back yard of our house. And we even play golf on the moon. And we could have REAL TIME VIDEO CONFERENCES among moon landing module, moon orbit module and earth. And we could automate lift off with the life support modules from moon to 300 miles up moon orbit like it is nothing, even if 1/6 of earth gravity.
Those days, we have only mechanical switches and limited number of vacuum tubes.
But 60 years later, we could not even do a proper lift off from earth. And we have IC that has billions of transistors and we have progressed so much in so many technological fronts.
Modern technology is in some ways more fragile. Sometimes a simple "update" can cause your phone more harm than good. Using simple 1960's electronics operated by brave men on a manned spacecraft (as opposed to an unmanned one) seems to have been a better option in some ways.
Hey do you know that cars back in the days use to be more durable and last longer than current modern cars which breaks down a lot. Can you guess why old cheap tech is better than current expensive advanced tech? The answer is greed, modern companies cut corners and make inferior products for maximum profits.
@@onsokumaru4663 also modern electronics have much smaller components which are far more sensitive to damage, even static electricity can damage a microchip beyond repair.
We can easily repeat Apollo. The question is why and what is the immidiate return on investment.
In the run up to the peaks of Apollo program it was consuming over 2% of US GDP. The aim was to beat the Soviets and demonstrate who has the best rockets to lob the nukes. Apollo’s brief was to throw a few men & equipment to the moon, pick-up a few rocks, do some PR and come back. A single mission was no more than 2 weeks. This is very easy to repeat if there is nothing else to spend the money on.
Upcoming manned moon missions are very different beasts. To see even a half a chance of a worthwhile return on investment, future missions must enable humans to spend more than a month or even years beyond earth orbit. This is complete uncharted territory when it comes to engineering life sustaining machine habitats.
@@SafeBandicoot well said Bandicoot, well said.
It took over 50 years to figure out we should at least go back to the Moon. We need to do better than that.
Why? Because China says it is going send Taikonauts to the moon by 2030, and every nation in the world knows China is going to make it
Covid on the moon
covid originated from the US@@silentmajority8365
Cut to footage of Chinese rocket landing in the middle of a village killing thousands
It actually happened look it up
@@silentmajority8365
better than Epstein Palace on the moon
@@OOsirishotep You know guys like that. Most of the leaders were WIP
USA fears china will show no lunar landing 😂
China didn't lose access to the international space station. China never had access to start with.
So china made their own better version
@@yuugenr7549 It had to go alone.
@@yuugenr7549Better? 😅
Yes better no doubt.
@user-th2tq1ro3m right, just like the J-31 is the "better" version of the F-35 right? 😂
😂My little home nation Kenya somehow came up in this video amongst all these large nations 🇰🇪🇰🇪
Getting back to the moon in 2025 shouldn’t be that difficult. It should be easy if anything seeing that we did it back in 1969. We were far limited in technology back then.
Artemis was recently delayed. The excuse we were given was "safety concerns". LOL!
@@derp8575you want to go up in faulty rocket be my guest, you can also cover the billions of dollars of wasted investment when the whole thing goes up in flames because dust shorted out one of the tiny computer chips that are more fragile than the technology used in 69
Yes but it’s not all about that, these aren’t missions to put a man on the moon again pick up a couple of space rocks and come back.
Look into the different moon missions. They were very risky. Lots of unmanned missions failed, especially in the beginning. Once the success rate improved manned missions began and eventually it was deemed safe enough to try a landing. “Safe enough” back then is not the same as now though.
If they really went back then.
Hollywood at its best!
Imagination: With access to near unlimited resources and scientific advancements thanks to space exploration, the earth will enter a new age free of greed and suffering.
Reality: The organizations that successfully manage to harvest the boundless resources beyond earth will use their position to advance themselves and make their leaders the richest people the world has ever seen while the 99.999% still struggle under a new monopoly.
The LYNC Corporation is hiring soon!
An inevitable reality...
Been going on apart for a long time.
robber barons gotta robber baron ...
very excited to see high definition video streaming from the moon when one of the landers successfully land on the moon
Mark my world Artemis will keep getting delayed until they get their cgi down.
Or until they are able to successfully depopulate the masses and enslave the remainder. They won't have to fake a moon landing again.
dude the CGI is ready to go. You havent seen the deepfakes?
We landed on the moon decades ago. We're now trying to work out how we did it😂
Its not as ludicrous as you think. In the 5th Century BC, the Greeks of Sicily, of example, minted coins which were such high standard of art and aesthetics that it would not be replicated again until the 17th century. It is one of many examples of cyclic nature of Human knowledge in the span of time. We try, fail, learn, forget, and repeat.
50 years ago. to be exact.
It's called esoteric knowledge. There were likely people who knew how to mint those coins again, but they sat on the knowledge and passed it down to their children, hiding it from the commoners. @@TheScimitar2
Yup pretty much, seems suspcious.
It's called esoteric knowledge. Same with ancient pyramids. The knowledge wasn't lost. It was concealed by those who want us living in ignorance. @@TheScimitar2
If is was so easy we did it in the 60's we wouldn't be talking like "when we finally get someone there" this renewed rush is feels like an admission the 60's landings never happened...
Or they met higher beings that forbid them to return.
It wasn't easy, you obviously have no historic knowledge.
The moon's lack of atmosphere and low gravity benefit it becoming a nominal launch platform for future missions.
Exactly. All these fools talking about colonizing the Moon and having tourism are completely missing the point.
@@punkypinko2965you think engineers don't innovate?
@@punkypinko2965I think the colonization and tourism was for Mars not the moon
The dust will shut it down.
especially if they can find a way to use the local resources in support of launches.
This video just proves to me that we never landed on the moon... your telling me that 50yrs later with all our technology we are struggling to land on the moon but they did it before computers were really useful tools.
Yep that's what I gather out of this video too. I still believe the research I've done about the original landings. I've even done the math now. 240,000 miles to the moon / 14 days / 24 hours per day = 715 mph. Or traveling the speed of sound for 14 days.
Bigger question is with all these moon landings, why is there no footage from the moon's surface? Why is it all CGI?
We're not struggling to land on the moon. It's not like we are trying and failing? Nobody has TRIED to put humans on the moon since Apollo. It's still going to be a matter of testing. The next time we put humans on the moon, it will be with an ENTIRELY new technological structure - and it will still need to be tested. They've already started that process with the Artemis program - the next program with goals of landing men on the moon again. Artemis I has already flown. Artemis II plans to send humans around the moon. Artemis III plans to land humans on the moon again. It's a process. The people who put men on the moon during Apollo aren't in the business anymore, and if they were - they'd likely be so far out of the loop technology-wise that they would be little help. We aren't building a 1970s spacecraft. We are building a 2020s spacecraft. There is a difference, and it still requires testing and time. But to say we are "struggling" to land on the moon is just an absurd fallacy.
Also - computers were EXTREMELY useful tools during the Apollo lunar landings. They could not have done it without them. That's just patent nonsense.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
Smart man
We haven't attempted to land on the moon. If you climbed Mt Everest 50 years ago and have made no attempt to climb it again since, would it be fair for me to say, "you're struggling to climb Mt everest, therefore I don't believe you did it"?
No.
Also, it's "you're"; not "your".
Ever time. You people are idiots.
It mostly comes down to who can develop the rockets to take a lot of payload to the moon to set up a colony, because it requires huge amounts of equipment to keep a colony running. Once SpaceX has the Super Heavy + Starship running, the US is going to have a huge lead over other countries in terms of the cost per kg of transporting to the Moon. Methane and oxygen can be made from lunar soil and water, so the Starship can be fueled from the moon. I simply don't see hydrogen rockets as viable because it is questionable whether they can be made reusable, since hydrogen embrittles the metal and it is so hard to store hydrogen for long periods of time.
The speculation about taking helium-3 from the moon to power the Earth strikes me as a ludicrous idea. We already have wind and solar plus grid batteries which are cheap and scalable and have falling cost curves. Once you calculate the cost of developing helium-3 fusion reactors and transporting helium-3 from the moon to the Earth, there is no way that helium-3 energy is going to be cost competitive with renewable energy in the 2030s. Even on the moon, I doubt that helium-3 energy is going to be able to compete with solar panels + LFP grid batteries. Perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells are going to take the efficiency over 30% at commodity prices, so I don't see why any other type of energy will be used.
Sitting wondering if I should even bother looking into what kinda resources are on the moon that are worth going to try to retrieve
You're kind of refuting yourself there, amosbatto. 200 years ago, internal combustion engines were a ludicrous idea. 30 years ago, solar was a ludicrous idea. renewables have only become economically viable in the last decade or so.
We're 1 or 1.5 decades from viable helium-3? Well, thats a similar time scale to what it'll take (assuming consistent funding) to establish solid lunar bases that are safe and reliable enough to support any kind of industry anyway, so that lines up pretty well.
It takes 4 years to design and produce a car w/established tech. As any VC entreprenour can tell you, you can't set up a new industry by thinking in terms of next year's bottom line.
Wind and solar are now great short to mid-term investments, and they will mature but they will never match the energy efficiency we had w/ internal combustion. To prepare for the next economic steps of the latter 21st century we'll need something with more oomph.
The best candidate is clean fusion. We've made it work in the lab, now it needs to be scaled and industrialized.
Fast forward to April 2024 and Starship can barely get itself to orbit with zero payload. Now Elon is talking about extending the length of Starship...
People dislike the guy, but I trust Bezos and Blue Origin in the long run more than I trust Musk and Spacex.
I'm not convinced we ever had humans on the moon.
Why is that?
They left reflectors on the surface used for Lunar Laser Ranging.
@@Unknown-oh6uethey will tell you probably because of conspiracy theory that have no proof of
Jeeez... 🙄
Some fairly serious scholarship has found it would be about as technically difficult and more expensive (plus a lot of dead bodies to explain) to convincingly fake a lunar landing than to just land there.
Have you ever seen the movie Capricorn One? (featuring OJ Simpson at his finest!)
How long did Jack Ruby live?
No possible way would all those tens of thousands of workers have been able to keep that scale of a secret on that time scale if left alive. Sooner or later, somebody would go Deep Throat, write an anonymous book and retire to Tahiti, spill the T to a lover, find grandpa's journal in the attic, rent the room next to Ed Snowden's in Moscow...
Thoeries that ignore human nature aren't worth a bean.
1969 landed on Hollywood studio moon landing, ha,ha,ha...!
Until today US still can't sent man landed on moon. Definitely it is a laughing stock..!
Proof or can you only make blind claims?
Drivel
@@Ethan_RobertsYou're so asleep, you are defending your dream and not reality. This whole thing is a fraud. Always has been. You don't wanna see that because it will shatter your dreams and your world. So you are on every comment thread arguing and commenting to people who personally don't believe in the lie, as if you get wages to do so.
We would have never known about water on the moon if it were USA or China mission.
Not true. The early NASA missions weren't focused on searching out water. Ever heard of the space race between USA and USSR?
@@KP-xi4bj I think their point was that it would have been kept a secret
@@onlyforytb What secret? There is evidence for water on the Moon since the Apollo days
Must be trying to get there for real this time.
The moon landings are in fact real, it is an insurmountable truth. There is so much evidence in the form of photography, video and demonstrable experiments that it is impossible to disprove.
Yup!!! Exactly
That lander looks like a middle school arts and crafts project😆. You’re not going anywhere in the
At thing
the space people get so triggered when you tell them the moon landing was fake 🤓😡
@@mrbigbankuchiface_3352we get triggered by morons in 2024 when knowledge is easily accessible
@@mrbigbankuchiface_3352we get triggered by morons in 2024 when knowledge is easily accessible
@@mrbigbankuchiface_3352 So true. The grown children that like to believe in 1960s moon landing movies get very angry when you tell them that the movie they all watched on TV was actually a movie.
50 years of technological advancement and still no human on moon and people still ponder the legitimacy of nasa moon landing...
NASA fanboys would make excellent parrots. They believe everything they are told by governments and corporations.
@@derp8575 Yup!!!
not on the moon yet and we're already talking about "who will conquer the moon first"...
well the answer is whoever gets there first
Bring extra curtain rods to replace the curtain rods on the old moon ship 😊
Funny how NASAs lunar program has evolved into a side mision for SpaceX
How do they keep a straight face 🤣
When most people are willing to believe the lie, it's easy. One thing I noticed about NASA fans is that they watch a lot of tell-a-vision. Combine that with fluoridated water and vaccines and you have the perfect slaves. They willingly place their mind's into shackles.
Return to the moon? I'm not sure we ever went there in the first place.
We didn't lol
I'm not sure you exist.
Do your research. The Apollo missions have been well documented. All those conspiracy theories are a load of nonsense.
Definitely.
way to out yourself as a smooth brain pleb single digit IQ NPC lmao
I wasn't born when people walked the moon before, but it appears to have been just for show. Now this looks serious and I'll experience HD VR shots of the moon in a few years! If only I could help, I would work for free to see humans out of this well.
YEah it has been half a century since USA landed on moons in the 60s they made it look soo easy. they drove cars they Jumped around.
@@r3dpowel796they also had time to set up a camera in complete darkness
Yeah cgi has improved a lot so they can show you in HD now 😂😂😂
@@darthmalum6024 There was no CGI back then but people like you apparently used it in the 60s.
Yes, it was only tv show back then…
good, quality content
What people gotta realize is, you dont NEED to be able to get from Earth surface to Mars or beyond.
It's incredibly pointless and wasteful and difficult.
All you need, is a refueling base (and manufacturing facility, which can largely be automated) on the Moon.
Once you can refuel on the Moon (or in low Lunar orbit, like at Gateway station), you can literally go ANYWHERE in the solar system.
"Easily."
All you need is to be able to get to the Moon, from Earth surface. Then everything else is unlocked with the same craft.
It's actually apalling and insane that we "forgot" how to get to the Moon, after we did it in the 60's.
We could literally have already gone to Mars before the 2000's
It's prime evidence that civilization is NOT a direct upward trajectory, parts of knowledge and tech CAN fall behind.
I had always heard when funding ran out for these moon missions, it was because there was nothing on the moon. It was all rock, equivalent to what was on Earth. Modern tests of moon rock even proved that.
I partly agree with you. "You don't NEED to be able to get from Earth surface to Mars or beyond." I agree with that part, but you also don't NEED to get to Mars from lunar orbit, either. It would be just as easy to get to Mars from Earth orbit. You would just need to launch your spaceship to Earth orbit, and then send up refueling tankers to refill the spaceship fuel tank. Then, getting to Mars will only take 3 to 5 months with a full tank of fuel.
Yeah, also when you are on the moon, the Earth is locked in the sky in the same spot all the time. It's way more reflective than the moon, and way larger in the sky. A "full Earth" would be 50x brighter than a full moon on Earth. When the astronauts were on the moon, it would have been a half full "crescent Earth" in the sky. But they all forgot to look up with the camera! This was at sunrise on the moon, but you can still see the moon during the day on Earth, so the Earth should have been easy to see from the surface of the moon. It's like that "Don't look up movie"
@@theriverschool822 This is true. The same side of the moon always faces the Earth. If I recall, that's because the moon's face itself is more mass up than the dark side.
yes, and we only landed humans on the "light side" of the moon, so the Earth was always above them in the sky. Since we went to the moon during sunrise on the moon, we can conclude the Earth is located at roughly a 90* angle from the Sun. So the Earth should be half-lit by the sun and half dark from the perspective of men on the moon. A giant crescent Earth looming over you would be so amazing, never moving in the sky, no clouds or atmosphere to block it. You could build a moon base with a window that constantly looked at Earth as it shifted through daylight phases, but didn't move (much at least.) You know, Richard Nixon was the only president in office when humans have been on the moon. The same year of the Richard Nixon scandal, right after his re-election, the moon got really boring. Just a bunch of rock I guess. No other presidents wanted to keep it up after Nixon. We had five human landings on the moon in that short time though, but not one person thought to look up. I guess I've never worn a bulky space suit though. @@gamesthatiplay9083
Back to the moon? We've never been there. Fake landing😂
get a job
@@benzene_sandwich a job? It's about the fake landing the hollywood apollo stories
@@benzene_sandwich like an astro actor? Tell everyone I was on the moon while I did a photoshoot in the desert 😂
That is an incorrect statement. You do not have any proof to back it up. The moon landings are in fact real, it is an insurmountable truth. There is so much evidence in the form of photography, video and demonstrable experiments that it is impossible to disprove.
No countries have put any men on the moon yet. I have been waiting to hear a news of human landing on the moon before I die. I am very much hopeful that India will be the first country to put men on the moon.
Have you completely forgotten about Apollo?
They find it hard to go back, cuz they never went, full stop!.
That is an incorrect statement. You do not have any proof to back it up. The moon landings are in fact real, it is an insurmountable truth. There is so much evidence in the form of photography, video and demonstrable experiments that it is impossible to disprove.
Rushing back to the moon? What a joke.We ain't even been there yet.NASA liars.
nasa (h5377, strongs concordance) is the Hebrew word for deception 😅
@@md-tu3bj It’s doesn’t have sound like NASA
@@Unknown-oh6ue okay unkown it’s the irony your missing
Man on the moon back then 😅 they cant even get there now 😅
its cause we never went
@@Brian01987 not man anyhow , probes and landers but no man has ever walked on the moon
@@macalister8881 What is your evidence for that assertion?
Interesting documentary, first American one i’ve seen thats interesting and asked educated questions
I’m not understanding if our first moon landing was successful back then, why is it so hard now? Especially with advanced technology.
The tech that got to the moon was hyper-focused on getting to the moon. Then the funding stopped. That proven old tech would now have to be built up again, or we work on new tech. The current space tech is excellent for other space missions -- probes, telescopes, orbiting stations -- but long-term moon missions require a whole fresh branch of related tech. You don't just dust off an old Saturn V, stuff it full of iPads, and off you go.
Its fake
@@Bniooh bullsht, you also dont destroy the technology that sent people to the moon for the reason that in the future people would wanna go back there.
The reason they use "we destroyed the technology" excuse is because its eaiser to explain it than having to prove they can go there again. Delusional boi.
The budget to go to the moon was huge. At it's height, the moon program was spending 20% of the USA's GDP. It's significantly lower now and the tech is so different that they can't even use any of the tech from the Saturn V. Everything has to be designed from scratch.
Its fake²
I guess the'll need a WHOLE BUNCH of graphics cards to pull this con off. 😘
We need to "for all mankind" this. 🎉
Lol
Gender is a social construct rooted in white supremacies and raysisms
If we did it 50 years ago, it should be much easier than they make it sound. They talk about it like it's a nearly impossible dream.
Why should it be easier?
Why should it be easier? We stopped making them for 40 years.
If you stopped doing something for 40 years, can you suddenly pick it back up? Probably not easily. Now imagine being a 100,000+ person organization
As Carl Sagan puts it, we are all one species.
But politics and religion make many people forget that. They are busy keeping us fighting and competing with one another.
Disagree...Trumpanzees in particular are not human...
Everyone has a political ideology. @@museonfilm8919
Moon bases let's go!
Yeah, Let's go this time for real !
wait till they realize they are already on mars, but shh you didn't hear it from here.
How was it so easy in the 60's-70's and now it's an ordeal?
I know right they make it sound like its humanity 1st time landing on moons but if we all watch the videos in the 60s it looks too easy.
It was hard then too though. But also, the people who did that are not able to work anymore, much of that experience was lost
@@ChrisRobin-zg1yr or it was faked theory is true
They never sent human to the moon. It was all faked to compete with Soviet Union. Now they need to do that again to prove they are better than China. But times has changed they don’t have that much money anymore.
They never went to the moon. It was in a Hollywood studio and/or Greenland at best.
It is impossible for man to go to the moon and outer space...and Yahweh do exist. There are limits set for all creation
I love the rather optimistic conclusion.❤
I wonder how far human race can go if these all countries decided to work together
Nowhere, they'd argue about who's right and who's wrong. Meanwhile, while they're on a race, they're actually doing their best. Human is not social mammal. It's competitive mammal. We don't live in a society, that's bs to control you. We live in a constant competition of survival of the fittest.
If the US and the USSR have been collaborating for space exploration alongside other major countries since post WW2 and Cold War didn't exist, we most likely would have not only colonized the Moon by now, but Mars also. Instead what we got today is another "race" to the Moon.
u can land a man few decades ago and u can't do it now with tons of new technologies? 😂
If you read up on this it’s just simple logic. The knowledge and tech exists but the actual rockets and manufacturing plants are no more. Simply a matter of costs.
@@freakazoid4691 If you believe that, then the Lochness Monster, Big Foot and King Kong are real??
@@mahalallel2012 after the cold war, there seemed to be no reason to carry out such expensive expeditions and there were budgetary limitations. Sending a human to outer space is way more expensive and riskier than just sending a probe. Newer tech can make it more affordable and for a longer time to actually carry out sufficient research in outer space.
You sound like you are trying to convince yourself@@Qwerty.240
@tatata832 only reason theyre going now is money to be made
Saw Artemis-1 at NASA from Feel the Heat seats!
What a bucket list experience
You will see it again 😎
Very good episode! Kudos 👌👌
Because they never landed a human there. LOL
That is an incorrect statement. You do not have any proof to back it up. The moon landings are in fact real, it is an insurmountable truth. There is so much evidence in the form of photography, video and demonstrable experiments that it is impossible to disprove.
What would be the projected cost for harnessing helium-3 to completely power the entire Earth for a year, a decade, fifty years, and so on?
It will be interesting to see how the Space Force gets build and grows over the years with the development of the space race
For all mankind 👀
My inddia is the 0ne of the p00rest c0untry of the w0rld with the GDP per capita smaller than s0me 0f the p00rest African c0untries
Amazing
Cant wait for them to put on the moon a solar powered video camera facing the earth. Wouldnt that be cool.
Never going to happen.
imagine watching the planet from the moon, live. would be sick
Over 50 years later......
I'm surprised they haven't already got base's on the moon....
(Or are they on Mars?)
The common language of Space exploration should be "Sanskrit" as it is the best language for computers.
Or create an efficient Global language , by taking the best attribute of languages
Great, and when you've done that you can fix all the potholes in the roads.
😂😢 "YES"
Just polluting the surface of the moon so it feels like home!
Yep, mankind will leave it's trash wherever it goes.
For all mankind
One of the best shows on right now, hands down
It’s getting real
What a shocker that you watch tell-a-vison programming and also believe that we landed on the moon. Correlation is most definitely causation in that regard. @@Pr0toPoTaT0
Two weeks of lunar night without sunlight or Earth noise -- an opportunity for important work -- important for knowledge gained and human survival.
The far side of the moon is the only logical place to have a radio astronomy base, and one of the best places to watch for possible incoming asteroids. We still have large asteroid come close to earth that are not seen until PASSING Earth.
Oh _wow_ that artist's rendering at 5:15 is gorgeous
We never went the first time lol
That is an incorrect statement. You do not have any proof to back it up. The moon landings are in fact real, it is an insurmountable truth. There is so much evidence in the form of photography, video and demonstrable experiments that it is impossible to disprove.
The world is rushing to the moon to find proof America actually landed there, America is rushing to the moon to cover its tracks 😂
So wait. They are going there to fake the fact that they didn’t go?
So why didn’t they just go to begin with?
Nope they know there are valuable minerals, they are going to mine it, more pollution is coming
Not really, everyone is concentrating on the South Pole where the water ice is located, the Apollo landings happened across the equatorial region, and those landing sites were already independently verified and seen from lunar orbit by orbiters of other nations like India.
@@DonGivani You mean more space covid and lockdowns coming from space germs. *sigh * greed is our undoing.
@@DonGivani More pollution? I get a headache when people without even the most basic crtiical thinking skills apply their limited, terrestrial thinking to space exploration.
NEWSFLASH: Just like there is no "lighting a fire" on other planets, there is also no "pollution" on other planets. Seriously, these folks who say they realize how precious Earth is are themselves the ones that don't realize just how precious Earth is.
How many of us watching this saw the original landing, July 20 of 1969? Pretty amazing time in history to live, I think! Rudi hoffman
5:40 Lol, u are saying that after the discovery of Water , India was interested.
It's INDIA, who 1st discovered Water
if usa really landed on moon with men ..why is it hard for them do now with advanced tech , did they magically forgot or lost how to send a man to moon ?....
You think it’s easy to get the same funding as during the Cold War space race? God you people are idiots
1) Funding is an issue
2) The people that did it in the 1970s aren't in the business anymore - - and even if they were, they are so far out of the technological loop that they would be zero help.
3) They didn't forget how they sent humans to the moon DURING THE 1960s AND 1970s. Technology has advanced a bit since then, so they aren't going the same way. The hardware they will be using will be ENTIRELY new. The methods by which they will go will be ENTIRELY different. The people who are working on will be doing what they are doing for the very first time. This is just a consequence of taking an operating program and shutting it down for over 5 decades. The technology is entirely different. The people working on it are an entirely different group of people working with entirely different technology. They aren't going to the moon for the first time, but for all intents and purposes, they are doing SOMETHING for the first time - - - and that is putting a man on the moon *_with and entirely different subset of technology and equipment._* That's not an easy ask. In other words, the people who are working on putting man on the moon are indeed doing it for the very first time for all intents and purposes. That in no way means that an entirely different generation of scientists and engineers didn't do it 5 decades ago in a different way using an entirely different infrastructure of technology.
Back? We've never been there
12 people have
Idiot conspiracy theorists
@@Ethan_Robertsor not
@@amazingamazigh1538 proof?
I wouldn't call it rushing with NASA's snail pace progress to create the SLS rocket
It's not NASA's fault. They rely on federal funding. In 1970s money, NASA's funding is tiny compared to what it was during the Apollo era. All these things cost money.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg They are spending multiple times the amount of money SpaceX is on their next generation rocket which is an entirely new design as opposed to SLS literally recycling 80s and 90s rocket parts on a rocket which only has reusability on the SRBs. They need costly refurbishment after each flight after landing in the salty ocean water among other reasons. Had they just gone with a new rocket design which could land itself like Starship or in part like Falcon 9 then the costs would be millions per launch not billions. They could do more with that "70s money" you talk about but I can agree the funding is very low. Then again, I wouldn't want to be funding a program recycling parts for a rocket that costs billions per launch throwing away a third of the rocket. Also, if it was too risky or dangerous to use a rocket that can land itself then why let SpaceX launch astronauts to the ISS on Falcon 9 for them? They're also even contracting SpaceX to make a lunar lander variant of Starship for the very same astronauts that fly in SLS to the moon, so they clearly do think it is safe.
The cause behind SLS's slow pace is because of the bureaucratic design of NASA and the fact that they don't think they can back out of their design now.
So basically the moon wasn’t interesting until folks figured out they could make money. Same crap, different planet. 🤣
Capitalism baby!
well it costs allot of money to get to the moon in the first place. of cours you need some kind of benifit for that investment. you wouldnt want your country to waste your tax money for no reason dont you ?
Maybe the world should turn the Sahara desert green first before we go to Mars or anywhere else outside of our planet.
...doesnt work like that, the saraha is how it is because of where it is on the planet ... to change that would change the enviroment on the entire planet ..
@@stephenfortin9485 it would be a lot easier than trying to terraform Mars into a livable place
We've never friggin been there in the first place .
Proof?
How many more years of delays will it take until you start to question?@@Unknown-oh6ue
@@Unknown-oh6ueDon't waste your time with idiots.
Conspiracy-theory trolls deserve only scornful ridicule.
@@Unknown-oh6ue Because NASA is still figuring out how to get there.
true, you and I have never been there.
A great behind-the-scenes look for the new “Expanse” prequels
For All Mankind has me hyped for these sort of developments
For All Mankind and Kerbal Space Program fans are going to freak out
LOL! Artemis was recently delayed. How many more years of delays will it take until y'all start to scratch your noggins? We've never been to the moon.
It's probably to get a closer look at Uranus 😂
The length some folks will go to to see Uranus is astounding!
This joke hasn't changed for 100 years and I'm grateful for that
They launch a rocket to Uranus.
Surely, you mean, CGI Race to the Moon ... right?
Never been to the moon, God’s dumpster. He gave us a beautiful earth. 💵💵💵💰💰💰
Rushing back???
OR
For the first time!!!!!
Only US is rushing back
*To See Is To Believed! False- never be- TRUE -never be false!!!*
😂 this dude talking about china claiming land that's doesn't belong to them 😂😂
傲慢与偏见
There's a guy from the USA who's selling land on the moon already. You get a certified deed and everything. 😂😅
Ho Lee Chit
Meanwhile the US claimed the whole universe to them some decades ago..
Islands near to the Philippines is waving😒
And yet people say the moon landing was fake. Will they say the moon's colonization is fake?
Also, regardless of who explores space: It should benefit the human race as a whole, not just a specific country. This is the one time where all of us, as the United Nations should stand together.
We don't know what's out there... and it would be better to stand as one united species.
You are definitely a lost cause. Keep dreaming. #matrix
China be like.. moon is part of China ...its part of our 9 dash line...aah actually it's 10 😅
you be like:we welcome usa build military bases on our land,but we cant let Chinese shipping in their sea,we cant torelate any behavoir of a country destroy our country land.(excpet my american dad)
5:55 You can't be serious... Have you seen the video of India's "moon landing"? It looks like a galaga ship from a video game lol. Notice how the motion is completely unrealistic and no dust is even kicked up when landing. Keep in mind that the moon has extremely low gravity so dust would be kicked up easily! Also... what were they filming with??
They have done with CGI landing and far away from south pole 600 km!
The engine was very low power.
Keep coping
@@Nuke.nSpeak for yourself and stop projecting your own insecurities.
@@MysticWizardOfMind 🤣 where are your facts
Because We Never Went there and We CAN PROVE IT 😅
How so?
Yeah give us proof
if these guys put all the effort currently devoted to conspiracy theorizing into space travel, we'd be on Mars already.
I would've cared 30 years ago , but at this point its not happening.
We need to rise up away from politics and our petty issues and unite and spread across the stars.
It will change everyones way of thinking.
we will all finally be happy flying rockets