Going back to the moon isn't just about cost

[@DaveMcKeegan]

To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.

[@anthonylecesne704]

@DaveMcKeegan do you have an email that you are willing to share with me? I know you're super busy but I'd like direct contact with you. Thanks

[@Starteller]

Even Kodak never made any publicity that their film went to the Moon and when we ask them questions about it they say to talk to NASA since they are the ones making those claims Go to a UNIVERSITY and Learna bout the Electromagnetic Spectrum, the Magnetosphere's existence and HOW the Van Allen Belt is created What was the temperature(s) of the film inside the camera while filming on the Moon? Ask yourselves why you can't control your mind to focus on the question. Because you are in denial. Your mind refuses to think about the energy source affecting the film since it contradicts your beliefs. A film is a chemical compound that reacts violently to most of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. That's why you all can't do it. Your beliefs stop you from learning REAL science. We cannot travel faster than the speed of light We cannot travel physically into the past There are no transdimensional universes Quantum Physic is not a real science Parapsychology is not a real science In Reality, Everything is Energy, E=mC² Space is expanded Energy Matter is condensed Energy Time is Energy in movement

[@Starteller]

@@OneHundredEnvelopes Go to a University and learn about the Electromagnetic Spectrum the Magnetosphere's existence and HOW the Van Allen Belt is created. Do you realize I know you don't?

[@Starteller]

Challenge your faith Go to a University and learn about the Electromagnetic Spectrum

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@@Starteller Space travel deniers are funny, in a really SAD way!

[@ShMokou]

Flerfs: WHY DON'T WE COME BACK?! Aslo Flefs: WHY NASA SPEND SO MUCH MONEY?!

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

That’s what always made me laugh. Like, they can’t even see the stupidity of their arguments🤣

[@SloverOfTeuth]

​@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 They don't derive their beliefs from facts and reason. Their beliefs arise from their emotions, they use their reasoning ability to try to justify them, and they select "facts" they can use for that. The giveaway is that some of them, and plenty of other conspiracy theorists, describe themselves as "truthers". People who are involved in something dishonest often feel the need to advertise their honesty.

[@vincepetrovic8700]

In the 70s it was: why are we going to the Moon? That money could be better spent here on Earth. In the 21st century: why have we never went back to the Moon? That can only mean it never really happened.

[@garnet4846]

You can't go back to a place you've never been.

[@SloverOfTeuth]

@@garnet4846 You can bounce lasers off reflectors they left there, and other countries have photographed the landing sites, you clown. Sorry, "truther".

[@PatricRogers]

One of the problems with long term government programs is that programs which can take four, six, tens years, etc., often get undermined when politicians change a few years later. Using Nixon as an example, NASA had a number of goals, including occupied moon bases, but Nixon changed everyone's mind and scrapped everything, making - in hindsight - "Apollo" look like "a failure" or "a waste." Similarly, IT overhaul projects get started under one administration, and the short-sighted voters change the politicians, who immediately say "Oh, that project that just started hasn't done anything, it obviously failed, so take away the money, so it will absolutely fail." Short-sighted stupidity.

[@petergaskin1811]

Nixon lost his nerve. I'm surprised that after Apollo 13, they even made it to Apollo 17.

[@lemagicbaguette1917]

It's less plain stupidity and more trying to look like they're doing something/fixing a problem. It's both smart and dumb.

[@BarrGC]

Yup, hence why NASA spread out everything they do throughout the country, to gain support and funding, while consequently making themselves into one of the least cost effective and fiscally inefficient organisations in the history of mankind, American tax dollars hard at work, lol

[@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344]

And what would one do with an "occupied Moon base". How many launches would it take to get there and what would it cost? Once we have a base, what would we do with it? How often would we have to resupply it? When is it likely to be close to self-sustaining? It will never be completely self-sustaining unless you are planning to move production to the Moon including semiconductor, batteries, coatings, solvents, lubricants, etc. If you are going to do this, you have to tell me what we are going to get for it that would not be cheaper or easier with robotics.

[@sexyshadowcat7]

@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 Mine it for raw materials to make big ass mirrors for power collection and solar shading.

[@MehralsvierZeilnelesne]

Most people would think that this video might be totally useless, but the fact that there are still people believing that the earth is flat and that we haven't been to the moon is a very good reason why this video exists

[@robertunderwood1011]

You’ve got a point there.

[@stevebaumann8359]

This video is only useful to logical thinking people who just don't understand why we haven't been back to the moon in more than 50 years. Flat earthers do not fall into this category. They are brainwashed people who are in a cult. Most of them cannot be pulled out with anything short of intensive deprogramming. It's no different than any other cult.

[@Wolfie142_]

yeah one of my teachers who is a christian (i go to a christian co-op) even believes that space is not fuckin real

[@Ickshter2112]

I would counter with 99.8% of the people that "think" the earth is flat don't really believe that. It is just monetarily benefits them to post this crap to the other .2% that just don't have critical thinking skills.

[@CadillacDriver]

How so? Whose mind is this video going to change?

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

Bottom line: Not going back kind of proves that we DID go, because if we faked the moon landings in a studio we would be "going" to the moon every other month, wouldn't we? In fact, we'd be on our way to Mars.

[@cryptojihadi265]

Exactly, if we could fake it almost a decade before we had "Star Wars" level Special FX, IMAGINE what we could fake today?!

[@dpsamu2000]

@@cryptojihadi265 If we spent a tenth of what we spent on movie fakery we could have gone back to the moon.

[@kennydavers3946]

I've nvr thought about that, that's actually a good one

[@EyeballsStudio]

Exactly! This is what I always tell deniers when they bring this up. If it was all faked, why did they stop? What's keeping them from faking more lunar landings?

[@simonkrimms1009]

Wow that is a new level of cope, well done

[@kalitor]

There was a cheese commercial about this. "For thousands of years, humans believed that the moon was made of cheese. In 1969, humans landed on the moon and found out that it was not. We haven't been back since... Behold! The power of Cheese!"

[@FeralFelineFriend]

You just unlocked a core memory for me!! What the heck!?

[@Zefar77]

It wouldn't matter. The Flers would just claim it's either CGI or staged because now we actually have the capability of making such stuff with the movie industry. They don't believe the ISS space station is real.

[@TJ-W]

Wtf is the ISSS space station?

[@Tomichika]

​@@TJ-Wwell duh, its international space super station of course 🙄🙄

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

International Space Station Station space station. Did I got that right?

[@Zefar77]

@@TJ-W Remove a S from it and you might figure it out.

[@petachad420]

​@@Tomichikasuper? FOR THE SUPER EARTH!

[@foxworthgames]

I love the we never went back argument. I always say, “I went to Jamaica on vacation once. If I don’t go back does that mean, I never went? Is Jamaica fake?

[@cryptojihadi265]

Yes, and yes! So don't even try to post your CGI photos of your trip there! WE AIN'T BUYIN IT!

[@thorin1045]

well if no one else goes to jamaica than it makes your claim less and less likely.

[@nikthefix8918]

Or that we don't currently have a supersonic airliner therefore Concorde was fake.

[@CorreQueTeGorreo]

Flerfs: Why we are not going back to the moon? also Flerfs: I dont want go to Antarctica

[@shaneeslick]

🔥BURN!🔥 Have a Trophy 🥳🎉🏆That's Brilliant 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@kennedygitahi]

You will take this like whether you want it or not.

[@MauriceWagura]

what does not going to the moon got to do with flat earth? the reality is that man never went to the moon, whether you believe in flat earth, spherical convex earth (the globe theory) or spherical concave earth (hollow earth)..

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@@MauriceWagura Get a clue!

[@CorreQueTeGorreo]

@@MauriceWagura Everything. Is not a question of believe because reality goes beyond anything that your broken mind believes. No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot flerf

[@robsquared2]

Have you tried to find parking on the moon? The place is such a mess. Dust and rocks everywhere.

[@cogboy302]

Plus, if you get clamped the release fees are literally astronomical.

[@alladda470]

If you research the landing spots those were predetermined by observing where the suitable sites to land from previous missions

[@Fifasher2K]

​@@alladda470 r/woooosh

[@AlbertaGeek]

They should really speak to the manager about that.

[@pierreboissonneault]

And have you think the insurance cost ?

[@Starshipsforever]

You forgot to mention Bush Sr. 's Space Exploration Initiative in 1989-1993 that also tried to return humans to the Moon, establish a moonbase, and then on to Mars. Unsurprisingly, that also got cancelled due to the huge cost involved, especially because of the high costs that a cost plus program entails. So, there's been a number of attempts, but the politics and the costs as always have canned them.

[@FunkyMooch]

The shift to using private enterprise to go lunar probably makes it cheap enough for these political think-tank organizations to afford to depart the planet if their political ideology gets canned.

[@barongerhardt]

Early 90's the mars plan at nasa estimated the first human on mars would be 2035. I don't know if nasa has an official plan for mars anymore, but looks like elon and jeff might make it there by then.

[@CRBenham20]

i dont understand how anyone can watch a spacex launch, covered in multiple angles by live onboard video footage from launch all the way into space (where you can CLEARLY see the earth is a globe), and still claim the earth is flat... they cannot claim the rockets are not really launching, as they can be physically seen by anyone from many miles away. So do they just think that the video footage is faked even though it is live streamed the entire time? at some point after the launch do they seamlessly cut from the real live feed to a deep fake AI or CGI video that exactly matches the individual spacecraft... i just don't get it. especially considering it is a private company, not the government who is putting out the feed, since their conspiracy theories seem to be that the government wants keep the flat earth a secret?

[@SCWillson]

The Flat Earthers maintain that the private companies are just false fronts for NASA.

[@2vacalouca]

various video angles, I can't believe you believe that. Today with A.I.??? where people do everything with images???

[@LarryK-jg6iw]

I think you could effectively begin and end the discussion with your last question. What would be the motivation for (an obvious) coalition of all nations to keep the flat earth a secret if, in fact, it was actually flat? What's the point? It's just a shape. Not even the flat earthers deny that the planet has been extensively explored and widely populated. As stupid as their belief is, they haven't done any better in finding a rational premise for the conspiracy itself. Keep in mind, this is far different than whether we actually went to the moon six separate times. That was the PR race with the Russians. Plenty of motivation there. But a flat earth? How about a pyramid? Cylindrical? Cube? Who cares?

[@aden538]

It is amazing how wildly flat-earthers overestimate technology. They don't even know what is involved in VFX or AI-generated imagery, but it's the catch-all excuse for anything they don't like and can't explain.

[@Vastin]

The amount of Copium consumed by the Flerf community is a billion dollar industry in its own right. They have to produce that stuff in bulk.

[@john211murphy]

The Apollo project cost $25.8 billion Adjusted to today, $257 billion.

[@cogboy302]

F*CKING BARGAIN!. The overall US defence budget for 2024 (1 year) is about $1.4 Trillion.

[@cogboy302]

The YT nannies seem to have deleted my previous response. 2024 overall US defense budget, $1.4 Trillion.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Yes, humans walked on the moon. That is settled fact. There is NO reason for humans to return to the moon. We can do science from the moon using robots and mechanical devices THOUSANDS times more cheaply than sending humans back to the moon. The colossal cost of sending humans back to the moon is not justified for the little new science we will do there.

[@feedingravens]

Imagine - that is a mere 1/4 of the yearly US military budget. It is 40% of the global military expenses, about as much as the next 9-14 countries combined. Which includes Russia, China, Saudi Arabia. Granted that was before Ukraine and Israel, in the meantime it might have changed. The european NATO partners will have ramped up their budgets (in the meantime it is too embarassing to have to say you would run out of ammo after 2 days), no one knows the current russian budget etc.

[@brigadgeneralvoid2508]

@@theultimatereductionist7592 Manned missions are just one stepping stone to colonisation

[@bodan1196]

During the cold war, Sweden's military defence strategy was to make an invasion of Sweden to be too costly to be anything than pyrrhic. If I recall correctly, a meaningful defence would be possible to maintain for three months, after which a capitulation would have been an almost given reality. Cost to benefit "calculations" is not just found in the corporate world, but also in domestic and international politics, and in wars. How any one can see a positive benefit to cost result when it come to war, except for actual battles on the battlefields, is perplexing to me. It is a "game" without a winner. "I prefere to play games where all can win. One might get a first place medal, but the others will have had a worthwhile, and/or good time."

[@Green_Tea_Coffee]

Oh, wars definitely have specific winners. Typically banks and defense contractors win big.

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

That’s essentially what Ukraine is doing right now. Making the cost too high. Hopefully putler finally figures it out.

[@chrissouthgate4554]

The Trouble is there are & have always been winners. In much the way a thief wins, you may not get the full value of the thing, but you have the thing with less effort than if you had made or purchased it yourself! This is Empires are made. Or even large countries, just ask the Indians.

[@bodan1196]

@@chrissouthgate4554 Your not wrong...

[@Vastin]

@@chrissouthgate4554 Unfortunately (?) that math doesn't work out in war anymore. Once upon a time you could ride into a city, loot its gold, enslave its people and make off with a tidy profit as a warlord (assuming you didn't die in the process). Now however all you're doing is generating massive future costs. Artillery bombardment of a city reduces tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure to worthless rubble. There's literally nothing worth looting, and if you want to make any use of the territory you just captured, you now have to pay out of your own pocket to RE-build all the infrastructure you just destroyed, on top of paying for all the ammo you used to destroy it. This will take decades and more tens of billions of dollars, per city. Making any kind of business case for the profitability of war is just a bad joke in the modern world. The only cases where it can conceivably work out is if you're seizing high-value raw resources like oil wells or mines - and even then you really don't want to blow them all up during the process, or you're still in for hundreds of millions in infrastructure costs to get them running again. It's rather easy for the defender to annihilate all that infrastructure on their way out if they know they're going to lose, so generally you have to assume you'll be starting from scratch. The way that rulers and corporations still profit from these ventures is by claiming all the benefits for themselves, while saddling their OWN POPULATION with all the costs to rebuild them, thus enriching themselves at the expense of their people, under the guise of war.

[@Daddyoh94]

Thank you for the video, Rusty!

[@LastGoatKnight]

I know one reason: it's nothing there. It's a desert in a near vacuum. You can go to a desert on Earth for cheaper, without a spacesuit and fear of soffucating, depending on the desert you can hydrate by the locals or visit the Pyramids of Giza. But your points are great as well

[@redwiltshire1816]

Not necessarily the moon contains a lot of materials it’s just that without any habitat for humans it’s impossible to process them in an effective manner and the moon could also provide a jumping off point for ship construction but like I said without the habitat these two things are currently not possible

[@SeanCrosser]

Well according to C.C., Chris from Westchester County NY, there should be a McDonald's up there so that there IS something to go there for.

[@ShMokou]

Exactly - it's a place with gravity and pretty clear vacuum at the same time. And as soon as our tech will need such conditions on a large scale - people will "go back to the Moon".

[@Green_Tea_Coffee]

There are plenty of reasons to go, it's just that most of them are the sort of thing that only private industry would be interested in. The government doesn't see the need, since most space science is either more easily done in LEO or by automated probes, and there's no strategic advantage for the military to go there.

[@mikemcwilliams7801]

@@SeanCrosser there is a dollar general up there too

[@ShadowDoc]

It's a simple answer really. We don't go back because we don't NEED to go back. NASA is not going to blow their annual budget just to say "Hey look, we did it again!"

[@h14hc124]

> "Hey look, we did it again!" A NASA spokesperson stated this morning "We played with your heart, got lost in the game. Oh baby baby.."

[@shaneeslick]

Yeah it's not like there is anything new to collect samples of so effectively it's just the "Worlds Most Expensive Bouncy Castle"

[@h14hc124]

@@shaneeslick There is new stuff to collect - particularly around the data collected from orbit related to the presense of water ice at the poles. We don't actually have a sample of that to study, and there are other minerals in the polar regions that aren't present where the apollo missions landed, but to go there *just* for that is difficult to justify. That needs to be one part of a larger mission.

[@leswhitham]

​@h14hc124 Helium 3, which we don't get on earth, is on the moon in abundance. That alone will be the reason to go back to mine.

[@leftpastsaturn67]

@@leswhitham Go back to yours? Fresh.

[@Green_Tea_Coffee]

"I don't keep up with US politics these days..." @DaveMcKeegan just imagine the biggest dumpster fire possible, and that's about what it looks like.

[@NastyMick]

It's catching nearby buildings on fire as well. It's really getting out of hand.

[@bretsheeley4034]

It’s more like they built a very large dumpster that they threw the other dumpster fires into before setting that on fire as well… and then added sewage.

[@drdave8607]

Yeah, I really envy Dave M here. Ignorance is really bliss these days in American politics.

[@Case_]

That's politics everywhere, not just in the US.

[@milliondollarmistake]

@@NastyMick Tell me about it. Canada is currently looking to vote in a french Trump-lite.

[@reggiedixon2]

To do something hideously expensive and dangerous the first time has prestige. Who recalls the 7th man on the moon? The problem with going to the moon after the Apollo missions was "what exactly are you going for?" If the moon was the sole source of the answer to viable fusion power then you might have something.

[@salland12]

Dave scott

[@reggiedixon2]

@@salland12 Of course, all those airports named after him

[@thorin1045]

it also needs at least a hint of return. finding america was a big benefit. going to the south pole still not produced anything useful, even less on the moon.

[@reggiedixon2]

@@thorin1045 I don't know for sure but the existence of scientific bases on Antarctica suggests to me there is some merit.

[@aden538]

@@reggiedixon2 It also happens to be a lot easier to hop on a boat for a few days to Antarctica, so exploratory science is a bit easier to pitch.

[@critthought2866]

Something else that people forget about Apollo and its hardware - it was never intended to be sustainable or to lead to other missions. It was purpose-built just to get them there and back, and so it was done as quickly as possible, without having the concerns for what's next. Amy Shira Teitel did a video that talked about it on her channel (The Vintage Space).

[@Green_Tea_Coffee]

This is an excellent point that doesn't get brought up often enough.

[@critthought2866]

@@Green_Tea_Coffee Agreed. She mentioned it in a couple of her videos. It was something I hadn't really considered, but is important when looking at the history of U.S. space flight and exploration. She really does a great job with her stuff, both on YT and other places. It's a shame she doesn't get more views, but hopefully the word can spread.

[@mikefochtman7164]

Having lived through that era, it was ... "um... turbulant". We were very proud of going to the moon, sure. But watching the casualty counts from Viet Nam every night on the news, the Kent State shootings, learning about DDT in the environment, the Cuyahoga River FIre... so many things were taking our attention and the public started focusing on other things. "Why keep going to the moon to get some rocks when there was so much that needed fixing right here on Earth?"

[@hartmutholzgraefe]

Reminds me of kzbin.info/www/bejne/naDLY6uVfJWWqpY

[@kylie_h1978]

The public was so bored of Apollo that by the time Apollo 13 launched, and it was considered so normal, the TV stations didn't even broadcast the scheduled program from the crew on the way to the moon. The media wasn't at all interested until there was an issue that endangered the crew. This is again a great argument for it not being faked as the more you do a trick the more likely you are to be caught. If NASA really faked it, they could have easily ended the program with Apollo 13 on a note that no one even bothered to watch. Instead, because things went wrong it drew attention back to the program and the next four missions.

[@LostCauseClown]

It's kind of sad you had to make this video. Understanding the basics of budgeting is something even an 8 year old should know.

[@robertunderwood1011]

That’s it exactly. You nailed it. This video is a waste of time.

[@bullschitt3666]

Hopefully the politicians learn the skill.

[@badouplus1304]

Because most flat earthers and moon-landing deniers have mental age of a 5 years old?

[@DonnyHooterHoot]

LOL

[@Learneverythinga-z]

how tf is an 8 year old supposed to know about basic budgeting

[@RM_VFX]

It's like going to the middle of the desert, and saying "hey, there's so much room here, I wonder why no one ever visits?" Except this desert requires billions of dollars to visit once, at a greater risk of life.

[@kylie_h1978]

This is one of the best and simplest explanation videos I have seen on this topic. Another example of a long time between explorations was the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench. On the 23rd of January 1960, Jacques Piccard and a US Navy Lieutenant named Don Walsh were the first to explore the Deep, piloting the Swiss-designed bathyscaphe, the Trieste, down to the seabed, to nearly 11km below the surface. It would not be for another fifty-two years before the next man would reach those depths when James Cameron (yes that James Cameron) would reach the seabed in the Deepsea Challenger, making a depth of 10,908 (three metres short of the recorded depth of the Trieste) on the 26th of March, 2012. Since then at least another fifteen people have done the dive on five subsequent missions, mostly using the DSV Limiting Factor, with the current record holder being 10,919 metres set by the Ring of Fire 3 Expedition in 2022. However that it took fifty -two years to repeat, doesn't mean that Piccard and Walsh faked it back in 1960.

[@realcygnus]

Yup, pretty BIG NASA/space fan here & I'm of the opinion that there are STILL very few legit/practical reasons for such manned missions. Absolutely we ought to double or even quadruple NASA's budget but, mostly just for pure science projects such as JWST & the Europa Clipper & such.

[@CryptoRoast_0]

If you listen carefully you can hear Dave knocking it out of the park. 👌

[@Strype13]

At this point, he has shattered Barry Bonds' HR record. Without using any steroids, to boot.

[@fredygump5578]

We're getting this backwards! The real question is, "If they faked it the first time, then why haven't they faked it since then? It'd be way easier to fake it now than it was back then!

[@chrissouthgate4554]

A number of Presidents have said to go back to the Moon. But it's Congress who decides the funding. The Congress members also want money to continue to be spent in their districts, hence SLS which continues funding to Shuttle legacy firms.

[@famlrnamemssng]

It's remarkable that the only reason SLS exists is to give people jobs. If NASA had their way they'd just invest in Starship more and speed things up

[@AM-rd9pu]

@@famlrnamemssng I’d argue that if NASA had its way, they’d be designing a new rocket from scratch.

[@baksatibi]

@@famlrnamemssng They are, the HLS contract between NASA and SpaceX has a total value of $2.89 billion and SpaceX gets a portion of that money for the development of Starship.

[@famlrnamemssng]

@@baksatibi I know, what I meant is relying solely on Starship as a launch vehicle instead of SLS and Starship HLS

[@ApolloKid1961]

Many hoaxers claim that everything has been lost. And in a way they are right. All the contractors who were involved in it at the time have either closed down their production lines or are no longer there. More or less that was a big mistake. This has been recognized and therefore the Space Shuttle production line is still somewhat maintained. The only alternative is to start all over again.

[@NoNameIsBest89]

This man has the smoothest transitions into ads I've ever seen in any video in 10+ years of being on this platform

[@Michaelzehr]

I went to Venice 25 years ago, I even have pictures to show you. Except I haven't gone back... so maybe I never went?? Maybe Venice doesn't exist? I mean.. a city in the water? On the water? The stories don't make sense... we know the "canals" on Mars were fake, maybe the "canals" in Venice are too? (Sorry, got carried away with trying that line of reasoning.)

[@AM-rd9pu]

I love to use that kind of example because it clearly shows just how absurd it is to claim that something didn’t happen just because it didn’t happen again or in a while. You can take that “logic” all the way to the extreme and tell those people that they’re claiming that it is impossible for anything to happen just once.

[@JohnM3665570]

Like people not going back to a restaurant, the Astronauts stopped going to the Moon because it had no atmosphere.

[@irrelevant_noob]

Hey that's not completely true, you can BYOA. ;-)

[@Green_Tea_Coffee]

Perfect! 😁

[@LanceHall]

Its hard to justfy 100s of billions to pick up rocks we already have samples of.

[@willunited85]

That’s it pretty much

[@JFrazer4303]

But it's easy to justify hundreds of times as much being spent, expending our troops as cheap mercenaries for corporate profit and political graft. No, the cost of Apollo wasn't a main feature of why it was cut. It's not at all ass if cutting Apollo allowed the money to be used beneficially elsewhere (most likely a lot of it went to contractors for the war in Vietnam, but it was still a drop in the bucket to what we were already spending there). There are very many very useful and profitable things to be done in space and on the Moon, it's just that tabloid quality content creators like this here and people in the comments section are immensely ignorant of it.

[@kylie_h1978]

@@JFrazer4303 I wouldn't say that Apollo's budget was a drop in the bucket of that of the Vietnam War. The US spent about $170-185 Billion on Vietnam between 1965 and 1973, they spent $25 billion on Apollo, about a sixth of what was spent on the Vietnam War. Also, most of the Apollo funding ended up being siphoned off to pay for politicians' pet projects around the US rather than going to waging war, the funding for which came from the military budget. As to there being profitable reasons to go to the moon and space, to a degree yes, but not to the point that anyone is taking the risk associated with finding out how profitable. Things like Helium-three mining are great in concept, but the initial outlay to get it up and running is huge compared to the initial profits, so companies aren't willing to take them. Theoretically, if you could find one, there are asteroids worth trillions of dollars floating around in the Asteroid belt, but how many companies are willing to build the infrastructure necessary to go find them and bring them back?

[@TheOwlman]

6:30 Quite so. First artificial satellite, first man in orbit, first woman in orbit, first multiple astronaut orbit, first space walk. Kennedy absolutely needed a first that would eclipse all of that or they would never have recovered from having something passing miles over their heads many times a day that they could do nothing about (Sputnik 1) - remember what the woman in the street said in an interview, "I think we should have been first." The whole thing was a cover for ballistic missile development anyway, von Braun simply suborned it to fulfil his desire for space travel (and everyone knows he would go to any lengths for that, including producing the V2 rocket as a weapon using slave labour during WW2).

[@davidh.4944]

Watch DKIS: _The 'Myth' of Soviet Space Superiority_ for the rest of the story. In point of fact, the USSR achieved many of its early firsts by rushing things and taking big risks. Sputnik? A metal ball with a machine that goes 'ping' inside. A meaningful scientific load had to wait until Sputnik 3. Gagarin? Well done, yes, but he was mostly just a passenger on an otherwise automated voyage. First woman? An insignificant, non-technical first. What you can do with an outie, you can do with an innie. First multiple? Not much more significant. Voskhod 1 was three people sardine-crammed into a modified Vostok capsule, which didn't even allow for the use of space suits. First space walk? Another risky, rushed stunt that came very close to ending in tragedy. In fact, even at the beginning the Soviets were only really ahead in one area-lifting capacity. And a lot of that was because the US program decided to go with Vanguard over the more developed Army Redstone. In almost every other aspect of spaceflight the US was on a virtual par with, and soon exceeding, their rivals. At worst they were only a few months behind. NASA was very methodical in its development, working carefully through incremental improvements rather than chasing those big, early gains (mostly). As a result they ended up handily winning the final race. Gemini built on the lessons of Mercury, and Apollo on Gemini. By the time the finish line was in sight, The US was well ahead in the game. To be fair, the Soviets did do a lot of good work, and had many honest achievements*. But the realities of the cold war and the consequences of Krushev's constant demands to one-up the enemy need to be taken into proper account. Potemkin villages in space. Appearance over substance. * I am particularly impressed with the Venera program, although even that suffered several setbacks before they had any meaningful success.

[@TheOwlman]

@@davidh.4944 _"In point of fact, the USSR achieved many of its early firsts by rushing things and taking big risks."_ Exactly, and they were free to do so because anything that went wrong never saw the light of day in public. This is in stark contrast to the USA where pretty much every failure was filmed and made public and the backlash when they killed astronauts stalled them for nearly two years in the case of Apollo 1 (which was a good thing because the redesigns demonstrated just how fast and loose they were being with safety). _"Sputnik? A metal ball with a machine that goes 'ping' inside"_ It achieved the first though _and_ it made the American public very uneasy, especially since anyone with a shortwave radio could hear that beep beep beep. I suspect it concentrated the minds of the politicians to what was going on and unlocked some funding though, more so once Gagarin launched.

[@tharpstead]

Good morning 🙂 Hello Moon

[@irrelevant_noob]

If only there was some Helium-3 on it... ^^

[@fortunatebum]

The only thing that boggles my mind is people not wanting to accept that humans are extremely intelligent and strong willed to do amazing things. But no we must be skeptical of the government because taxes.

[@blankenstein1649]

oh dave, you just don't know us as well as you thought. my fellow countrymen would *absolutely* vote to put up a wall around montana. we'll wall anything. walling is our thing.

[@lidbass]

Hell, I'll contribute to a wall around Montana. On condition that you include Alabama as well.

[@blankenstein1649]

@@lidbass you drive a -hard- easy bargain, but it's a deal.

[@PeerAdder]

But only if the inhabitants of Montana (and Alabama) pay for it.

[@sthed6832]

@@lidbass For very little extra you could include Mississippi also. Good deal.

[@Herby-1620]

If they put a wall around Montana, how would one get taken to the train station?

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

I am fine with a percentage of my tax dollars going to the moon trips and other space exploration and scientific endeavors. As well as helping out our allies. There is enough money to chew gum and walk at the same time.

[@mattilindstrom]

Regardless of the overriding need to show the Ruskis who's the top dog in the space game, incidentally sending trained geologists there to do sample return achieved a scientific goal. Nowadays with e.g. advanced rover technology it would be wasteful to haul around fragile and costly in life support humans. The machines have long time endurance, and can be equipped with instruments to answer specific scientific questions.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Exactly

[@rays2729]

And there is plenty of sunlight for recharging the batteries!

[@Appletank8]

You also need to answer to a lot less people if a robot dies vs a human.

[@kylie_h1978]

@Packhorse-bh8qn Actually there were a lot of surprises, in fact, among other things,, we changed our entire belief on how the moon came into existence based on the Apollo sample returns. This is one of the major anti-hoax arguments, what we learned from the sample returns totally invalidated the two most proposed hypotheses of the time concerning the Moon's origin and led to the revolutionary impact hypothesis we hold now. If the moon landing was hoaxed, then it would have been expected that the samples would have been made in a way as to confirm one of the current beliefs, rather than opposing both.

[@kylie_h1978]

And humans could have done the entire science of the combined Mars rovers in about a month compared to the decades it took with rovers. Also if a human finds something interesting, they can stop go back, and get better tools to investigate, with rovers we need to literally send an entire new rover. Rovers are great, and they have contributed vastly to our understanding of our solar system, but they are never going to be as good or as efficient as actually having real humans right there.

[@frenat]

I've told many people that we haven't been back yet because nobody has seriously WANTED to pay for it. Previous presidents have said we could go back but when the funding doesn't materialize the program won't happen. Some also say that NASA's budget is big enough already. But that budget isn't just a big check that they get to do whatever they want with it. Every part is apportioned to specific programs by Congress.

[@kayjay592]

Where is your evidence that the government did not have enough money to go back to the moon in 1973? Please provide data to back that claim up! Or are you just saying stuff without actually confirming it to be true?

[@kayjay592]

The budget the year of apollo 17 moon landing, was *3.4 billion.* The budget in 1973, the year apollo was cancelled, was *3.3 billion.* Then budget in 1976 was *3.67 billion.* More than they had when completing manned moon landing missions. So what you are saying is completely false! Best to fact check before forming opinions.

[@briansomething5987]

​@@kayjay592nobody ever said the government didn't have enough money, that is just a stupid strawman you made up.

[@kayjay592]

@@briansomething5987 Fantastic! Finally you acknowledge *apollo was not cancelled due to cost!* Thankyou. We finally got there!

[@Green_Tea_Coffee]

@@kayjay592 It was cancelled because the government decided to spend the money elsewhere, e.g. because of the cost, specifically opportunity cost.

[@anthonylecesne704]

Dave, you have great knowledge of the workings of the US, politics, NASA, and otherwise. Keep doing the great work you're doing.

[@rickpapineau5939]

He knows more about the ACTUAL state of American politics than most of the people who are going to vote for the orange guy in November...

[@anthonylecesne704]

@rickpapineau5939 I hear his accent but he has better knowledge about the US than many/most Americans. In fact, I watch his videos to learn what I didn't know about the moon landing, certain fact earth debunks, etc. He has a lot of subscribers but I wish I had direct communication with him. One thing I'd ask, how do you know so much about the US? along with several other issues.

[@techienate]

You're 100% right: we have no real reason to go to the moon other than that it's cool. Which isn't gonna cut it, unfortunately. Any science could be done more cheaply by unmanned drones and rovers. Back in the days of the Apollo program, we didn't have that technology.

[@rmdodsonbills]

The other thing about Europeans going back to Asia and Africa was that it was fabulously profitable. They weren't going to a lifeless, airless, waterless rock, they were going to lush, verdant places teeming with new and exciting animals and plants including spices that were wildly popular back home and in high demand. Magellan's first round-the-world voyage lost ships and crew, including Magellan and STILL made fabulous profits. If Armstrong and Aldrin had found the place paved with gold (or at least easily refined ores), we might have been back in a heartbeat and repeatedly, but it would have to be something REALLY valuable, not only to offset the costs of going there in the first place but to provide enough profit for the investors. And since everything that exists on earth is much much easier and cheaper to get to than stuff on the moon, it would have to be something that was ONLY available on the moon or available in MUCH greater quantities on the moon than is available on earth.

[@moisescazares1928]

I can picture it now… the moon has gold and then we would be having issues of us mining the moon so much that it affects the tides and everything else the moon does for us.

[@Vastin]

Yep. Unlike the movies, pretty much everything that can be found in space can also be found here on Earth. There are no magical elements or crystals out there - at least, nothing we could conceivably reach in any case. Metallic Hydrogen would be fun to play with, but getting at it in the core of Jupiter would make digging to the center of the Earth look like a Sunday picnic, and ultra-exotic materials like Neutronium are far beyond any conceivable technology to harvest or use... assuming we had a neutron star anywhere in our vicinity and the FTL drives to get there - which we do not.

[@Appletank8]

The Launch to El Dorado

[@rmdodsonbills]

@@Vastin The one plausible thing I've heard anyone suggest is Helium-3 in quantities sufficient for fusion reactors because of solar wind interactions with the lunar regolith. And going all the way to the moon with all the necessary life support might still be more bother than it's worth. About the only other thing I can think of that might be valuable at all is the fact that the moon is not so deep into the earth's gravity well and so would be easier to launch interplanetary missions from. But that's only true to the extent that things were already on the moon. If you have a viable colony already and can manufacture things on the moon from moon resources, then it's easier to launch from there, but if everything has to be lifted from earth to the moon first, you gain nothing.

[@kylie_h1978]

@@barongerhardt But only, as @rmdodsonbills noted, if you intend to use those things for further travel, either interplanetary or interstellar. None of those things are cheaper to produce on the moon and send back to Earth than they are to produce here on Earth.

[@fruitdealer_R34L]

Well it's better to throw money away than donating to flat earthers.

[@ThePaalanBoy]

We did it as a milestone, to prove we could, now it's a question of... Why? It's just a rock, why should we go back? Who would pay to go there again and why would they?

[@sparking023]

One of the potential reasons to go to the moon is that, being a relatively large satellite, the Moon could act as an easier jumping point to longer space travel. It would be game changing if we could source materials from there, but just the lower gravity of the moon would make for much easier launches. Imagine a space shipyard in the Moon, from which missions to Mars can be sent for mining resources, plus all the experience and tech you will need to develop and test regarding settlements of longer permanence. There are many benefits, but they're not at the top of gooberment priority list.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Yes, humans walked on the moon. That is settled fact. There is NO reason for humans to return to the moon. We can do science from the moon using robots and mechanical devices THOUSANDS times more cheaply than sending humans back to the moon. The colossal cost of sending humans back to the moon is not justified for the little new science we will do there.

[@paulcrumley9756]

Well, people paid a lot of money to visit Titanic, and I'm sure there are rich dreamers about the moon. . .and people who might pay millions to be a "researcher" aboard such a mission. . .

[@ThePaalanBoy]

@@sparking023 Elon would do this just for the memes alone, just gonna take some time, SpaceX is still in a state of development.

[@ThePaalanBoy]

@@paulcrumley9756 ...that is such a depressing use of space travel... Which also makes me question why Elon seems to be the first to just start their own space program

[@ceejay0137]

The transition into the Brilliant segment was superb and took me completely by surprise! The rest of the video was very good as well.👍👍👍

[@j.tann1970]

The main thing preventing Apple from acquiring all other streaming services is not the cost benefit aspect, though that may be a large reason, it's the anti monopoly laws preventing them mostly.

[@barongerhardt]

They literally couldn't afford it. They have around $60 billion in cash. Netflix alone has a market cap over $300 billion. Add in disney, hulu, youtube, amazon, hbo, and more, not a chance for all of them.

[@cat5lover862]

The weirdest part of this argument I found is that these people completely ignore or are unaware of the fact that we ARE going back to the moon. NASA’s newest Artemis programs plan on having people on the moon with Artemis 3. Note Artemis 1 has already launched and Artemis 2 is currently planned on launch in September 2025, with Artemis 3 planed for September 2026. This is your lifetime, you will see this. How can you deny it now and then?

[@victorfinberg8595]

well, it's real easy to SAY "we never went to the moon". it makes the LAZY, STUPID reality deniers feel good to flap their jaws

[@DraconisLeonidas]

Honestly the people bringing up sending Ukraine aid vs spending money to go to the moon is absolutely appalling. Regardless of your stance on the moon landing, that's just an absolutely demented comparison to make just on the basis of what that money is meant for.

[@dhmosquitoiv]

It's rather bizarre .... have these people forgotten that the US was fighting a trillion dollar war (todays currency value) in Vietnam at the same time as Projects Mercury, Gemini and Apollo were being undertaken in the 60's early 70's?

[@EBDavis111]

They just want an excuse to support genocide. They're appalling by their very nature.

[@cobrakaineverdies4589]

Yeah, both are a complete waste and robbery of the American people

[@randallreed7415]

​@@dhmosquitoiv Yes, but everything was far cheaper in the 60s. Gasoline was under $1.00 😢

[@kurocknotabi]

🎶If you believe the earth is still flat🎵 So to summarise, the US didn't have the appetite to go back to the moon. But now there is the Artemis project...right? Right.

[@kneekoo]

There's Artemis because Trump can't help himself from flexing. 😆 He wanted to go big and leave a mark as president, and have the US do a next BIG thing by having a human settlement on the moon doing research, so NASA can learn important stuff for the even bigger thing: people on Mars.

[@rickpapineau5939]

Missed the part where Artemis will make it economically sensible to go, didn't you? The Earth is still a globe. NASA isn't some all-powerful entity that controls everyone and everything. Science is real.

[@nunya_bizniz]

Yes the Artemis Project exists.

[@kneekoo]

Artemis came to life because Trump loves to show off and he probably also wants to be remembered in history like the other president who aimed for the moon. So he managed to get political support to return to the moon, to have a permanent human presence there, and learn from that, so people can later go to Mars.

[@kneekoo]

The previous president is known to talk big, but he actually restarted the moon program as an actually big thing. This time the plan is to have a permanent human presence on the moon, so NASA can learn about living farther out in space, with in-situ resources, so they can later go to Mars.

[@MrChilliconqueezo]

Dave... That was hands down the best Segway to an Ad I've ever seen. Hats off to ya

[@donut2099]

NASA - Can we go get moon rocks? Congress - We have moon rocks at home.

[@shaneeslick]

🥳🎉🥈 It was a hard choice but you were just pipped by @CorreQueTeGorreo for my favourite comment today 😂😂😂😂😂

[@Skip6235]

Okay, let’s stop and admire how brilliant (pun intended) that sponsor segue was!

[@Requiem4aDr3Am]

the juice has to be worth the squeeze for it to happen thanks to politics. Now that technology has advanced and we are finding incentives to return we are going back. Now our mugs with overflow with flerf and moon landing denier tears.

[@kayjay592]

What incentives did we find that were not there in 1972?

[@Requiem4aDr3Am]

@@kayjay592 mining and use as a base for missions to mars.

[@dallasdawg]

One other factor sometimes forgotten in all of these discussions is risk tolerance. I read a paper titled "NASA’s Understanding of Risk in Apollo and Shuttle" , where in the Apollo section it stated the early risk calculations showed that NASA could lose 30 astronauts to successfully put 3 on the moon. Further, it stated that overall chance of success of Apollo was calculated to be 5%. In the political climate of the 1960s, that level of potential loss was deemed acceptable. These numbers simply would not be accepted today. For new missions to the moon, NASA must build a program with significantly less risk, but with a much smaller budget than what it had for Apollo. Risk mitigation is costly...and that ties in with Dave's thoughts on money and political will.

[@lazarus2691]

NASA's current acceptable level of risk is a 1 in 270 chance of loss of crew, or 0.37%. Not sure how they chose that specific number, but it's 13.5 times lower than Apollo.

[@ronnyskaar3737]

Most folks who deny there ever was a moonlanding, also deny there even is a south pole, not to mention someone going there, like your favourite norwegian Rollamsen. 😂 Greetings from Norway.

[@kylie_h1978]

I doubt that this is actually true. There are a lot more Apollo deniers than there are Flat Earthers. Pretty much all EFers are Apollo deniers, but only a small number of Apollo deniers are FEers.

[@redtailarts101]

"why haven't we gone back?" What is there on the moon. It's just a rock. There's not a lot of cool stuff to go back for. It's a waste of time, money, and risk to human life

[@notjebbutstillakerbal]

Ice, rock and that's all

[@kayjay592]

The moon is very profitable in natural resources. It is pletiful in helium-3 which is worth 3000 US$ per litre! This channel is full of f@natics that constantly lie and make stuff up, just to say we landed on the moon. The fact that the moon is profitable and not just ice and rock, *does not in any way mean we didnt land men on the moon!*

[@kayjay592]

"why havent we gone back?" is a great question, and should be asked. Acknowledging this is a good question, *does not mean we did not land men on the moon!*

[@TheOwlman]

The American public very much lost interest after Apollo 12, once they had landed 11 and proved it wasn't a fluke. So much so that by 13, the networks had stopped broadcasting the video feed while it was in transit to the moon, though that suddenly changed once the explosion made the mission _interesting_ again. The brief resurgence lasted through 14, but even keeping a couple of the later missions was politically sensitive, despite their increased scientific objectives, and the final missions were simply axed, with the vehicles being reassigned to orbital missions. It is always politics. As to the lost technology: everything was produced by corporations who spent vast sums on specialist equipment that was dismantled once the cash was gone for future production, and once that happens there needs to be some heavy investment to get anything like it back, hence the billionaire space race by those who can afford their hobby.

[@SeanCrosser]

Americans simply don't realise how much they're driven by spectacle.

[@TheOwlman]

@@SeanCrosser I agree. They are happy to be first and then leave it at that a lot of the time.

[@aden538]

The "lost technology" is one of the most frustrating arguments to me. It's also not just the facilities. Practically every piece of equipment was hand-crafted for a very specific purpose, and the people who spent a decade solving all of those problems aren't around any more. All of that institutional knowledge is gone. It's like saying we need a new car so let's build a Model T... Sure. -We need to find figure out all the parts needed. Maybe Ford has some blueprints stored in a vault, maybe not. All of the people who would know from experience are dead. -Figure out all the materials needed for each part. There's better/stronger/cheaper materials now, but that's going to change the way things behave so you would need to adjust. -Also, safety and manufacturing standards have changed drastically, so have to adjust for that as well. -Stand up a brand new facility to design and create the parts. -Stand up an assembly plant to put the car together. -Test the hell out of it, because the safety standards of today are way different. So, if you need a car, do you resurrect the Model T or do you build something new with the latest technology? You're starting from scratch or near-scratch either way.

[@TheOwlman]

@@aden538 Exactly. You only have to look at the F1 engine for a dramatic example of how much you would need to recreate and, good as it was, newer materials and ideas mean that the whole field has moved on.

[@battleoid2411]

​@@TheOwlmanYeah, and every other country is different, hence why so many other nations landed people there. Oh wait, no one else has even tried, almost like once it's been done its not worth the effort of flying up to a barren rock. I guess other people also care about spectacle, huh.

[@blankityblankblank2321]

The people saying "the US has the money to do another moon landing" are either not americans or not tax paying ones. The US can't even agree to spend money on fixing bridges, do you really think they could just get through another moon landing program?

[@redwiltshire1816]

O 100% I could see that just send things into space for no real reason instead of infustructre they pretty much do that already but the rockets stay on earth 😂

[@sparking023]

Well, the US *does have the money,* it just has other stuff higher in the priority list.

[@igorbednarski8048]

US military spending is something like 800 billion $ per year. Moving mere 5% (something that wouldn't exactly cripple the US military capabilities...) of these funds to NASA would almost triple its budget. Same applies to other space programs - the budgets of ESA, JAXA and others are so relatively tiny that it would actually be very easy to increase them many times over, governments around the world regularly waste their money on stupid and unnecessary stuff and nobody bats an eye.

[@joerichardson4325]

So much fraud embedded in every govt expense. Govt won't even repair potholes. It'll contract with a donors/relatives sign-making company, to make/erect signs that say "Slow Down Potholes Ahead".

[@lexmachina8961]

You should watch the video before commenting. He is addressing exactly that.

[@semper_reformanda]

Dear Dave. Can you make a video in which you compare the star trails at 1.Northpole (centerpoint with small circles) 2.Equator (straight lines) 3.Southpole (centerpoint with small circles) ? Once you demonstrate why the star trails look identical at the poles and different at the equator you have a really big argument a flat earther can not refute. On a flat disc you can not explain the different form of star trails between the poles and the equator. After 20 years of researching this topic star trails are in my opinion one of the greatest arguments that can prove what form the earth must have. A flat earther can‘t simulate on a flat earth the typical star trails that we observe at both poles and at the equator. Especially on the southpole there can‘t be a center point with small circles around. On a flat earth the star trails at southpole would rather look like star trails at the equator on a globe.

[@victorfinberg8595]

well, really, NO observation can be shoehorned into the flat earth hoax

[@airiannawilliams3181]

I don't know the whole story, but I know enough that the FAA was side swiped a few years ago (5+?) with one of the bigwigs, or more, where some things were signed off on for quick turn arounds, and the FAA was more or less blamed for not catching the faults of the company prior to liftoff, in both space ship builders and aeronautics, ever since then, they more or less have no choice but to examine all the details with a fine toothed comb. Expected failure points to precise trajectories, A to Z and everything in between. I feel sorry for the FAA and those that have to play the waiting game to get clearance in this regard, because any deviation from what has been signed off for that flight leads to more red tape.

[@petermerchant4439]

10:37 - :"And they never travelled more than walking distance from their landing site." This is a little bit off. Apollo 17, with the LRV, was able to travel further than walking distance. But they didn't travel more than what would be a one-way trip back on foot, just in case the LRV failed.

[@irrelevant_noob]

He didn't say the didn't have the "ability"... just that they never did. 🧐

[@lexmachina8961]

Actually, it's correct. They went at walking distance with the LRV for safety reasons so they indeed went at walking distance after all.

[@davidb4192]

I thought he was referring to Apollo 11 only, with the walking distance comment.

[@Bearded-Logic]

There's also the moon dust (lunar regolith), which presents another unique challenge to going back to the moon. It clogs up filters and can render tech inoperable. If inhaled, it can cause severe pulmonary problems. Mitigating all these problems is just another barrier in returning to the moon.

[@robertunderwood1011]

Yes, it’s a barrier. So what? It didn’t stop us the first time !

[@Bearded-Logic]

@robertunderwood1011 The first time we went, we were unaware of the effects of lunar dust on humans and equipment. It's more of a problem than you think. It takes time and ingenuity to devise a solution to mitigate these very real and life-threatening problems.

[@steveaustin2686]

Both the HLS Starship and Blue Moon lander will have airlocks to help mitigate the dust issue, along with other procedures.

[@Case_]

I'm sure the HLS Starship will have airlocks to mitigate the dust issue, even though right now, it still doesn't even really have a Starship ;)

[@steveaustin2686]

@@Case_ SpaceX has Starship, it just hasn't made it to orbit yet. :) SpaceX is a few years, at least, behind schedule as there were supposed to be Starship to Starship propellant tests in LEO by the end of 2022. Musk has a history of overly ambitious timelines.

[@awatt]

Why has no one made a new Concorde? Case closed

[@zntei2374]

I could study for my exams but I'm not doing that. Why?

[@SeanCrosser]

​@@zntei2374 because THEY don't want you to, clearly Which is why you have to do it. Do your own research.

[@MichaelOnines]

To be fair, there is a company running test flights right now on a smaller delta-wing supersonic aircraft commercially in hopes of developing supersonic commercial airliners again.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​@@zntei2374 Supersonic flight was banned over land limiting it to flying over the ocean at full blast, the 1970s oil crisis completely changed the economic balance. Then the accident happened which didn't do it any favors. Any attempt to revive commercial supersonic flight will need to reduce sonic boom to make flying over land feasible and thus unlock more flight paths.

[@TheSimCaptain]

Beating the Russians to the moon showed the US ability to deliver ballistic missiles with pinpoint accuracy. That's why the Russians tracked their every move in space and would have called them out if the US were faking it.

[@hagerty1952]

There's a quote from the Robert Heinlein novella, "The Man Who Sold the Moon" (written in 1949) that I use in my email signatures: ""The real engineering problems of space travel have been solved since World War II. Conquering space has long been a matter of money and politics."

[@mofumofutenngoku]

You have a nice dog. Part of the reason why I watch your videos.

[@jameskyle7943]

Correction- Dump said he would build a wall and MEXICO would pay for it. It's as if Kennedy had said, we're going to the moon, and Russia is going to pay for it.

[@iloveyoual32]

Ha! Joke's on you, Dave! I just threw money in the bin not but 10 minutes ago! Side note, I don’t think my wife is going to like me going through her purse...

[@johnqpublic7608]

a couple of friends of mine worked on the new probe Clipper to jupiter's moon europa. it launches on the 10th.

[@Andy205ro]

There is no oil on the moon.

[@kayjay592]

There is Helium-3, far more valuable! 1kg is worth 30 million

[@EBDavis111]

@@kayjay592 Shame it's on the moon and it costs more to get it than it does to sell it.

[@Green_Tea_Coffee]

@@kayjay592 You're off by almost a factor of 10. There's a company working on extracting and returning He3 right now.

[@ApolloKid1961]

@@Green_Tea_Coffee Interlune is working on this but is not on the moon (yet).

[@kayjay592]

@@Green_Tea_Coffee Fantastic! So at least you now agree this channel is wrong, when you lot say there is nothing valuable on the moon! Great we all acknowledge reality, the moon is valuable! Well said! Furthermore, its worth even more than the fictional resource in the movie Avatar! Reality.... embrace it!

[@tysondog843]

Exactly, if the CCP (Gov of China) publicly stated they were going to the Moon, and would set up stations there. NASA's budget would immediately be massively increased.

[@AudiOhm]

Not massively increased, the funds would be reallocated...big difference...

[@tysondog843]

@@AudiOhm They would get a larger percentage of the national budget, an increase of funds. So, a massive increase of their budget...

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

They did.

[@h14hc124]

China has already announced that they plan to put astronauts on the moon by 2030.

[@tysondog843]

@@h14hc124 And the USA is currently running the Artemis missions. Go figure...

[@brucebaxter6923]

They haven’t been back to the on cause they saw there was a flat earth.

[@flezmo]

The Moon is a Cube!

[@petergaskin1811]

So every celestial body we can see is demonstrably spherical-ish except earth which is flat?

[@brucebaxter6923]

@@petergaskin1811 You can’t see that. You can clearly see all the stars planets and sattrkites forming a dome as far away as the horizon. Just look up and trust your eyes.

[@joerichardson4325]

​@@brucebaxter6923 Who cleans the dome? It must get dirty, on the inside at least, from volcanic ash, pollution, dust, pollen, etc. And where would one order the squeegees from?

[@brucebaxter6923]

@@joerichardson4325 angels

[@longway2pro]

13:35 was the cutest thing I've seen today

[@Deltarious]

I dunno I figure that it mostly *is* about cost. Cost doesn't just mean money, cost is time, effort and desire too. We could have gone back to the moon in a similar or better timeline as the 60s if the intrest and money had been there. Heck if the money was *really* there, as in an order of magnitude more (inflation adjusted) than the 60s we'd be able to do it on an extremely truncated timeline of just a few years if we were also willing to accept some risk. The issue is that there's just been little governmental desire there to do so, and that stems mostly from the moon, and honestly space as a whole, loosing the public's intrest and thus it becoming hard to justify larger spending on NASA and specifically the moon. Public intrest didn't really start to blossom in space again for the general public in the US until maybe the 2000s to begin with? There was some resurgance in the 80s and 90s too, I want to be fair, but it was realtively minor. In the 2000s it started pretty minor too but it's been a very slow continous growth up until now where it's more 'mainstream' again -most people I know now know at least the highlights of what SpaceX is doing, for example, but those same people can't remember the last shuttle mission ever (STS-135, 2011), despite that being very historic, even though I myself watched it live. P.S. The reason Apple can't buy every other streaming service isn't really because they wouldn't get enough benifit out of it (also they probably actually can't afford it, the streaming market combined is worth huge money)- you're describing a monopoly, if you have a monopoly you control the market and the benifit is basically guaranteed, it will almost *always* pay itself off. Pretty much all companies would love to do this, it's the holy grail. They're not *allowed* to do it, and the penalty for even trying can be fairly severe. If you want an example of a company attempting to do this and skirting the absolute legal limit look at Google's search engine and ad serving business and Apple's pushing of their ecosystem and 'walled garden'-ing their services. Both are slightly different takes on 'legal monopolies' that are so close to the limit that actually both companies have been sued for it and lost

[@patchvonbraun]

While it is true that certain aspects of technology have improved *immensely* -- computing has improved according to Moore's Law, and is roughly 8-9 orders-of-magnitude faster today compared to 1969. This helps with some aspects of mission planning and mission systems, absolutely. But materials technology, and propulsion technology haven't improved *that* much since 1969. Vehicles are somewhat lighter, engines are somewhat higher performance. But equating the improvements in computing and electronics to improving other aspects of a space mission is a mistake. Just because we all have smart phones now doesn't make human-rated spaceflight that much easier--particularly for a tricky mission like sending humans to the Moon, and getting them back in one piece.....

[@chrisblake4198]

One thing I'd love to see is a company that lands a herd of rovers on the Moon and sells time to any and all who want a few minutes to drive.

[@jasonsellers56]

Someone needs to tell Elon about this idea. I love it! 🤩

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Can't wait to see flipped over rovers littering the Moon like improperly parked electric scooters on our cities.

[@jamesmskipper]

The USSR EVA clip reminds me that many called it a fake! Two of the claims were that the feet never appear in the movie or stills and that the spacesuit legs were straight when inflated. The conventional wisdom was that inflated spacesuit legs were bent at the knees. I'll try adding a link to my part of the first USA EVA.

[@michaelthorp1284]

Always appreciate your clear and concise explanations and insight.

[@Nivola1953]

Dear Dave, I like the style of your videos, you’re concise and to the point with solid evidence and reasoning! That’s why I strongly suggest that you look a bit deeper into the reasons of why going back to the moon is expensive, especially if one wants to do all those new things, like a moon orbiting station and a permanent settlement. The main reason is “the rocket equation”, check the numbers for the Saturn V gross mass, the TLI payload, and then the LEM that landed on the moon, what you get is 1.8% of the launch vehicle weigh went to moon orbit and 0.6% is the LEM which landed on the moon. Pretty abysmal isn’t it? That’s why if you check the Starship files, you will find the astonishing number of launches needed to send the final payload to the moon, I’ve seen numbers from 12 to 36 to even more, each one at a current price tag of 1 B$, with a rocket that has shown, so far a disastrous record of failures in the first four launches. Your comment on the red tape, standing in the way of Starship success are also pretty distorting the reality, that this launch pad location should have never been authorised in the first place, being in the middle of a previously established nature reserve, just check the numerous videos by Thunderf00t on the subject. I’m pretty sure that Elon Musk will, single handedly sink NASA back to the moon program.

[@FunkyMooch]

A lot of valid points. I think Helium-3 'mining' is one of the ideas behind going back to the moon, but currently He3 has a limited use and it doesn't justify the expense required to get to Luna.

[@andreaswiklund7197]

Years ago I traveled to Switzerland to see that country. I haven't been back since. Not because I can't do it any more or because I didn't like it. I have simply done other things with my time and money.

[@MoreEriksson]

I agree that the main reason the Apollo mission continued for as long as they did is because of how much preparations were already well underway despite later budget cuts, one thing that shouldn't be overlooked is the fact that Apollo 13 wasn't a complete disaster; had the crew died, whether in space or during re-entry, I don't know that NASA launches one more mission, let alone four. Think about what happened after Challenger exploded in 1986, it was a public relations nightmare and the space shuttle program stopped for over two-and-half-years.

[@dancinswords]

It felt like he wrote that whole budgeting part for an ad tie-in for a budgeting app, but then at the last minute he had to just plug in Brilliant at the end. I kept expecting him to drop the name of the app

[@flynnoldman3542]

Fantastic ad transition.

[@macstorm3432]

Its like that one time you went on safari in kenya, it was a holiday of a lifetime and the most amazing experience, but why haven't you gone back?

[@CS-mo7xp]

no body is saying Kenya dose'nt exist or you cant go their????? also its on earth not in the galaxey so NASA wont have a bugdet for that

[@JohnM3665570]

@@CS-mo7xp , It would still be the expense that would cause you to not return to Kenya for another safari. Not returning is not proof you never went on the safari.

[@AM-rd9pu]

@@CS-mo7xp You’re missing the point. The point is that not going back doesn’t mean you never went in the first place.

[@EveryUserName]

People giving money to flerfs might think it was worth throwing money in the bin. They're effectively doing that ever time they donate ...

[@obsu]

that was a SMOOTH ad transition.

[@hagerty1952]

11:15 A better movie comparison is "Moon" from about 15 years ago. In that one a valuable substance (either Helium 3 or Tritium, I can't recall which that really exists on the moon) is being shipped to Earth by mass driver capsules. Since it's created by the solar wind particles impacting regolith, it's right there in the top couple of mm of the "dirt" and can be harvested by simple scoops. No digging required.

[@steveaustin2686]

Helium 3 is likely what you are thinking of. It is on the Moon and using it for fusion doesn't create energetic neutrons. Tritium/Deuterium fusion, both isotopes of hydrogen, produce energetic neutrons that are harder to shield against.

[@scottplumer3668]

One other reason is that it's a hell of a lot cheaper and safer to send probes into space, rather than people. People have to be brought back. Well, they don't _have_ to be, but you'd have trouble finding astronauts who wouldn't be returning.

[@kernicterus1233]

I think it was during Apollo 17 that the US Congress passed the Bill securing the development of the Shuttle. ISS was the logical solution, along with all the shuttle missions.

[@chassetterfield9559]

And, I think that there are other factors in play here. The Saturn V was a very big hammer, to crack a relatively small nut. Look at the sheer size of it, and what it did. Delivered 3 men to the moon, only 2 of whom ever actually landed, for a couple of days, and brought them home. Of all of that hardware, we have a handful of little conical cabins, plus 6 stranded descent stages on the Moon, 6 small piles of debris [ the used ascent stages, jettisoned, to crash back down eventually ], and some experiments, abandoned vehicles & cameras. It's a poor return on investment, once you've scored the first goal. So, we moved our attention to larger capacity, more reusable launch vehicles, in the form of the shuttle. We launched some satellites, and the Hubble. We also used it to construct a working, long term, large scale station in space. As such, that was job done. Time for a new challenge. Take what was learned from STS, plus developments in rocket technology, for a new breed of better heavy lifters. I think that there are 2 main aims. To practice building a functioning ground station on the Moon, to allow extended habitation, and to build a larger, new space station. The longer term aim is a mission to Mars, and that is going to require long term habitation - you don't fly there, stay for a week & fly home again. It could be a stay of months. You don't want your first attempt to build a base to be literally your first [and last]. Anybody who knows the logistics of the Moon missions knows that to expand that by orders of magnitude, the sheer bulk of material will not be lifted off Earth by any rocket that we can currently conceive of, and ignore whatever Musk says. The whole thing, from vehicle, to payload, to crew, to fuel will have to be lifted, and assembled in orbit, hence the new station. A modular rocket factory.

[@neleabels]

The very fact that these mindnumpingly trivial things have to be explained to adults is disheartening.

[@mikebirkett010]

Yup, I suppose what most economists ask is "what's in it for us?", valid point but not really fun.

[@rakninja]

i was waiting for the transition to the ad read from the moment you said "any one of us could pull out our wallet..." i was expecting squarespace, though.

[@CD98.]

Literally just been searching for new flerf/moon landing denier videos as im boutta smoke and get into deep thought then I got blessed with an upload phenomenal timing dave 🤣

[@chrisbagust3516]

Well said, Dave!

[@enscroggs]

Dave's channel followers are divided into two broad demographics: Very Bright, and Very Dim.

[@stixstudios3380]

Logical as always Dave. Cheers 👍

[@michaelbean2478]

One point of contention, if I may... Wile it is possible for 'competition' to drive things forward, it doesn't always work that way...and in many cases cooperation is the best way to get things done...easy example: the Allies against the fascists in WWII, while there were some friendly competitions amongst the various units fighting for bragging rights, they never lost sight of the common goal they were working for.

[@CaptainSpock1701]

Dude, what a segue! That was awesome!