Missions we Lost When Apollo was Cancelled

[@malcolml309]

The sad part, is that we stopped going to the Moon, just as we were finally getting good at it.

[@1peanut]

hahahhahahah kzbin.info/www/bejne/i3zNq56kj7CImsU

[@keithcrispin1368]

And I thought the UK were only good at screwing things up when we got something good. You must have had a UK political infiltrator

[@malcolml309]

@@keithcrispin1368 You would think so. But what ultimately killed future manned missions to the Moon, was politics, plain and simple.

[@keithcrispin1368]

@@malcolml309 do you think that funding for the Vietnam war had anything to do with it

[@malcolml309]

@@keithcrispin1368 Actually, it did. LBJ, was having trouble with funding BOTH the Great Society and the Vietnam War. And for all of his faults, Nixon was astute enough as a politician, to know that the Moon has gotten to become controversial even BEFORE we landed on the Moon.

[@Alprazolam08]

Jim Lovell deserved one more chance to land on the moon.

[@MrTitanic14]

I agree with you, but he planned to retire after Apollo 13, so... he wouldn't have been an astronaut anymore when Apollo 19 would have happened

[@bingola45]

@@MrTitanic14 Bernard Lovell would have gone!

[@EdgemanLL2]

I think Apollo 13 was (jn advance) his planned last flight. Mrs Lovell may have mutinied if he stayed in the rotation.

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

@@MrTitanic14 Well because he thought he would've landed on the Moon. I mean, as a astronaut back in those days, what else would you have to accomplish lol.

[@heavymeddle28]

He ate to much alprazolam to land on the moon 😉

[@dhomer00007]

I was a 25-30 year old technician working on the launch tower and launch control center. You reminded me of a lot of forgotten data. Nice job. I left the program at Apollo 16. My job on 17 was finished. It was in the VAB ready to be ruled out. By this time in the program, refurbishing the tower after a launch was pretty easy and all the bugs in the launch control center (Firing rooms 1 and 2) had been worked out. Eighteen had been cancelled and Sky lab was still a ways off, so no need to hang around, on to other adventures...

[@PapiDoesIt]

I've always thought giving up Apollo was a huge mistake.The shuttle never lived up to expectations, but Apollo exceeded all expectations and would have been a great platform for a future permanently manned lunar base.

[@TheGroundedAviator]

That and making the Shuttle as big and complex as it became, once it was a space pickup truck. But yeah like with the Russians, simple, rugged and adaptable systems that can work with purpose built hardware (like the Luna Module).

[@HeatherSpoonheim]

Totally agreed. Nixon couldn't understand ( and couldn't have understood) that a reusable, multi-purpose, terrestrial/space faring vessel was just completely out of reach. In hind site, it is easy to see that something like the shuttle would have been great if kept in orbit to move/repair satellites, and single use engines could more efficiently deliver capsules/cargo/fuel. In hind site, however, this is a valuable lesson if we can actually internalize it and move to modular space exploration - sadly, we've not learned the lesson, it seems.

[@deanfawcett7113]

NASA planners really did think that the space shuttle was going to solve their problems with the enormous one-time cost of each Saturn V. As usual, the government lied/exaggerated, and the bean counters got it completely wrong. Coupled with the inflation of the early 1970's, the cost of each shuttle mission approached and surpassed that of a Saturn V. The space shuttle was neither as ubiquitous a launcher as envisaged, nor half as safe as it was purported. The once-a-week launch schedule was hopelessly and fraudulently optimistic. Had the US had the foresight to continue development of Apollo, humanity may already possess a Moon and even Mars colony. But America likes to posture, make money and war rather than genuinely advance civilisation, unfortunately, as even Apollo was ultimately a political statement.

[@TheGroundedAviator]

It wasn't his legacy basically. And I may as well say it, Americans don't like simple and rough-n-ready, probably why JPL under William Pickering was so successful, he wasn't American. There was going too be a replacement booster for the Saturn !b which used the S-4b atop a scaled down S-1c booster as the 1b despite being a great booster couldn't carry a fully fuelled CSM and it'll have used mostly available hardware. The "wet workshop" concept was viable for space stations and a Venus flyby and in theory we could've used them at the Lagrangian points of Earth's orbit.

[@TheGroundedAviator]

Too quote a line from the graphic novel "Ministry of Space" the Americans have no opera.

[@richhoule3462]

Constantly changing NASA's goals with every new President, really doesn't help either.

[@harrykuheim6107]

The Brown Clown really crippled NASA by telling them that their highest priority was to make Muslims "Feel Good"...What a Fucking Idiot

[@58jharris]

Yep Obama was hardly the pro science president that many had hoped he would be. If it didn't have to do with climate change or renewable energy he didn't seem interested at all.

[@Auxodium]

NASA were crippled by Obama, which has set a bad precedent. But it is a great shame than over the decades we have had Presidents and administrations tinker too much with the industry and therefore progress in areas has been terribly slow. Things seem to be positive during this administration. Fingers crossed.

[@Wazulon]

I think NASA is almost a done deal now sad to say.

[@steveburrus9347]

WTF "Brown Clown" to describe Obama? Listen IDIOT any future Apollo space mission had long been CANCELLED by the time that Obama assumed the .presidency! And I can easily detect your damn anti-Muslim bias.

[@ProjectGeek1]

I think the manned Venus flyby would have been amazing. Just the sheer audacity of it, mind blowing.

[@elite4702]

Holy shit it would be so cool...

[@txtabby]

Even better, manned Mercury fly-by. SPF 10,000 LOL

[@HalNordmann]

Though it was incredibly dangerous, and little more than a stunt at best.

[@caswellricosilver3292]

My uncle, Leon Silver, trained the Apollo astronauts in finding, collecting and archiving geologic specimens on their missions. Although moonrocks did find their way back to Earth, the deeper geologic study of the moon wasn't to be and a tremendous opportunity was lost. I know he considered it a great honor and reminisces on how much these men enjoyed their lessons in "rockhounding," even though they were in the Mojave in summer.

[@leftcoaster67]

I read "A Man on the Moon" talking about your Uncle. He was a great teacher, and really got the astronauts motivated. Using the astronauts natural competitiveness to learn. Thanks to your Uncle for being a great piece of the ground staff who trained the astronauts so well.

[@paintfreightsjessewaits4323]

The specimens from the moon turned out to be wood bro noice lie tho lmaoo

[@colinfield981]

Yes he got good wraps on the Apollo 15 and 17 episodes of the TV version

[@jomac2046]

@@paintfreightsjessewaits4323 Yes one piece, a well documented stuff up in regard to the sample given to The Netherlands.

[@mgabrysSF]

Although it was drama-centric, I always enjoyed the Rock-hounding as described in HBO's series 'From the Earth to the Moon'. I took some basic Geology in College, and even with a low-level course - we took field exercises and terrain overlooks. Having a basic knowledge of Geology means you never see the landscape the same again.

[@leftcoaster67]

No bucks. No Buck Rogers.

[@georgerussell2947]

leftcoaster67 lol

[@lesnyk255]

eff'n A, Bubba!

[@kirishima638]

Biddy biddy biddy budget cuts!

[@abbaszaidi8371]

leftcoaster67 "we wanna window!" (Sorry thought I'd pipe in there as Alan Shepard in The Right Stuff)

[@lesnyk255]

What Gus is sayin'....

[@dukeon]

The future used to be so much better than it is now.

[@sartainja]

J. Sias Amen.

[@X-JAKA7]

And now it's not because of COVID-19

[@socrates5162]

it may take 50 years to un-do all the damage Obozo caused......

[@ghostinthemachine8243]

Ain't that the truth.

[@scootertooter6874]

I am a lifelong space geek (age 56), and have been lucky enough to be involved in missile or space jobs (both operational and engineering support) my whole adult life-- you do a TREMENDOUS job in these vignettes. Keep up the GREAT work!

[@bostonseeker]

I wonder if the Nova booster (10-12M lbs thrust) had been built -- even without direct ascent to the Moon (its original purpose), the lifting capacity to Earth orbit could have supported a fantastic array of applications, both manned and unmanned, not just Skylab.

[@lukestrawwalker]

@@bostonseeker Yeah, BUT it would have made Saturn V look like a bargain by comparison... and it would have taken a LOT longer and more development time and money to build, which is why Von Braun came around to EOR and then LOR mission modes for Apollo versus Direct Ascent... It wouldn't have been ready "before the end of the decade". In some of the proposals I've seen plans for "uprated Saturn V's, even one with a SIXTH F-1 engine installed in the center of the base-- make the thrust ring 39 inches (IIRC) greater in diameter, move the outer four engines out, and then move the center engine over to make room for a SECOND inner F-1 beside it. Lengthen the S-IC by doing a tank stretch, something like 10-20 feet IIRC (been awhile since I read the specs) for the additional propellant for the sixth engine. Switch to F-1A's which were uprated to 1.8 million lbs thrust versus F-1 at 1.5 million lbs, and that's some serious added power. Couple that with an uprated S-II second stage with 8 J-2S engines and a 10-15 foot tank stretch, and J-2S on the S-IVB third stage (J-2S was basically complete and F-1A wasn't too far behind; had a second order of Saturn V's been produced, they would have been equipped with J-2S on the upper stages, which IIRC increased thrust to 225,000 lbs, over the original 200,000 lbs thrust of the original J-2 (which they had already boosted to 205,000 lbs when Saturn V flew, IIRC). That's a LOT of extra lift power! A stretch of the S-IVB was also possible, with all the upgrades it was going to be like 200 tons to the Moon over the standard Saturn V at 130 tons... While the "big solid boosters' for Saturn V were non-starters for many technical reasons IMHO (cost, and operational complexity and problems being among them) the idea of building LRB's for the Saturn V held merit... Add a pair of 22 foot diameter liquid rocket boosters, each sporting a pair of F-1 or F-1A engines, and delete the center engine on the core Saturn V, and presto you have 8 F-1 or F-1A's burning at liftoff, "Nova" without the all-new 40 foot first stage! PLUS, as a bonus, you get a handy-dandy replacement for Saturn IB's first stage 'Cluster's last stand"... a 260 inch S-IVB would fit right on top of a 260 inch dual-tank inline design booster powered by twin F-1's... that gives you a friggin' HUGE leap over the capabilities of the 8 H-1 powered multi-tank cluster of Saturn IB... Probably my favorite design for the Saturn improvements was the S-ID proposal-- redesign the plumbing and thrust structure of the S-IC to make it a "stage and a half design" like the old Atlas booster... the outer four F-1 (A's) on the outer ring and the center F-1(A) all ignited on the pad, burning for about 2 minutes into flight, at which point the outer four F-1(A's) shut down, and the entire rear ring housing them is jettisoned. The center F-1 (A) continues burning to push the entire first stage into orbit, payload and all. The center engine has to be fitted with gimbals, and the plumbing to feed the outer four F-1's designed around a manifold with plumbing and valves and a separation plane so the outer four engines ring can be jettisoned in flight. You get space-shuttle sized payloads into orbit with a stage-and-a-half rocket burning ONLY KEROSENE AND LOX, and if you design the booster ring with recovery parachutes and flotation gear, you could theoretically recover and REUSE the outer four F-1 (A) engines! Only the center engine and core would be expended! Such a redesign was not only feasible but a tiny FRACTION of the cost of shuttle, and operations cost with a single large stage-and-a-half vehicle, one burning much simpler kerosene/LOX propellants versus exotic LH2, would have been a HUGE savings over the shuttle and SRB infrastructure and operations costs... Later! OL J R :)

[@samanthawick2617]

Great episode! I recently discovered this channel and binged a bunch of the old episodes in one sitting.

[@Trident_Euclid]

Samantha Wick The Netflix effect 😂

[@FPV-wi8fw]

I think almost everyone that finds this channel has a binge session of video watching lol

[@FPV-wi8fw]

+shlibber R.I.P. data. never forget :(

[@DanielstrattonNZ]

Oh good its not just me. I like her videos...she seems a lot more genuine and less self indulgent than alot of other videos in this space.

[@fernandochavez4312]

Samantha Wick she’s pretty awesome. Really knows her stuff and builds models too! One in a million.

[@chickmanley921]

Really enjoy the longer ~10 minute videos, the detail and archival footage is fantastic. One of the best channels, especially since channels focusing on the actual flights and missions of such quality are hard to come by. Thank you Amy!

[@scottgibson6735]

Dave Carsley Amy is a. major hottie,but I would never fap to her picture, or videos,it would be disrespectful.

[@davecarsley8773]

Scott Gibson Oh shut up white knight

[@chickmanley921]

Hey dave, ever have anyone comment on a picture saying they jerk off to someone you respect? Did it annoy you?

[@davecarsley8773]

Chingiz Ismailov Yes; No

[@davecarsley8773]

Chingiz Ismailov K

[@jayjay60]

Why am I, a total space nerd who grew up in the 60's, hearing so much new and interesting stuff from a kid who was born decades after the Space Race? Because she's awesome, that's why! And the video she edits is totally accurate to her narration. She knows her stuff!

[@MK-je7kz]

In my opinion, the biggest lost with those budget cuts were Voyagers 3 and 4. Once in a 150 years opportunity wasted.

[@Patchuchan]

Yah we could have learned more about Saturn's moon Titian but looking at how things were fiscally at the time we should be thankful we got the first two Voyager probes.

[@TheEventHorizon909]

Patchuchan but Cassini! But I they missed out on Neptune and Uranus's moons.

[@RCAvhstape]

And without Voyager 6 (V'ger) there can be no Star Trek version of the future...

[@cmdraftbrn]

well the carbon units infesting the creators planet will be eliminated anyways.

[@doctyler5382]

cmdraftbrn - We are not important enough to be eliminated, fleas on a dog cause more trouble then we do. 1000 years after humans go extinct there will be very little left to show we were even here. Right now we cant even go to Mars safely, other then earth, what danger do we represent to the Universe?

[@paulpatton41]

It's truly sad that the final three Apollo lunar landing missions were canceled, just when Apollo was reaching its full potential for the scientific exploration of the moon. NASA didn't feel confident enough in it's ability to land on the moon that they could send a geologist until Apollo 17. Besides being scientifically invaluable, the last three missions, which included landings in the spectacular craters Copernicus and Tycho would have been visually awesome, and Amy didn't mention that the astronauts would have had a flying vehicle instead of the lunar rover to gather samples over an even wider area. After all the money spent to develop the capability to send humans to the moon, it is unconscionable that our political leaders chose to cut Apollo short simply because the political stunt of beating the Russians had been achieved. A wider range of professions, including science and education, need to be represented in politics, not just business people and lawyers.

[@dougmc666]

Politicians hold the purse strings, not scientists and educators, there was nothing left to pay for after beating the Russians.

[@oveidasinclair982]

Just look at all the money wasted on those space shuttles, you want to talk about a money pit. Everything we did with those shuttles we could have done with Saturn, or Delta rockets. We could have went Mars on the money wasted on the Shuttle program.

[@oveidasinclair982]

dome ENT. firm what is sad is that their are people as fucking stupid as you are who actually walk among the rest of us in this day and age.

[@isaacniloy3194]

I just can't agree u more here...well said👏

[@HalNordmann]

@@oveidasinclair982 Nope! The Saturns were incredibly expensive.

[@jeffrichards4399]

Apollo 20 would have been great. They might have discovered the Monolith around 25 years earlier/

[@adeebighani3976]

Jeff Richards huh? What monolith

[@wahoo236]

I know, RIGHT?

[@wizardmix]

We'd soon after be captured by an alien race that evolved itself into pure energy relegated to live in a bizarre hotel room.

[@davidreisman412]

Jeff is referring to the monolith from "2001: A Space Odyssey"

[@1pcfred]

It is looking more and more like we're the ancient intelligence in the Universe. There may in fact be nothing more evolved than we are.

[@fubarmodelyard1392]

congress- too lofty. you guys are reaching too far into the unknown. NASA- um, that's what we do. reach for the unknown.

[@zaclegoattack]

FUBAR Model Yard I love how they say it was too expensive, but then they built expensive nuclear binge and costly wars

[@brianmartin5758]

1. The U.S. Gov does not own or have built any Nuclear Power Plants (other than Military). I believe all NPPs are all public/commercial owned/run...so what does this have to do with congress (other than regulation)? 2. Costly wars....what wars are not costly? Expand on your sentence and say what you really mean or don't say it at all.

[@liamsvensson1985]

Good call :)

[@cloudstrife6435]

Very informative and quite thought provoking, Amy. Thank you for another quality video!

[@darrellfrazier9735]

Chris Boom and 9

[@dagwoodsystems]

I don't know why you do what you do, but I just love you for it. I was five when we went to the moon and I've studied everything about the space program endlessly. Yet I find that I still learn things from you. Thank you so much! Sincerely, a color-blind guy who always wanted to fly.

[@jimstanga6390]

One of the Astronauts at CapCom during the Apollo13 rescue mission commented that he was going to bring is 8 Track tape collection of Johnny Cash with him to the Moon on Apollo 20..... and play it all the way there and back.....I wonder if he planned on playing 'Ring of Fire' during re-entry.....

[@albertbatfinder5240]

What about Ghost Riders in the Sky? Or One Piece at a Time.

[@iamkurgan1126]

Jim has watched too many movies.

[@josiahbahuaud2294]

@@iamkurgan1126 Right? Lol

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

@@iamkurgan1126 Or one movie specifically. Apollo 13, which is where that comes from. Can't say if it's true or not.

[@iamkurgan1126]

@@randomlyentertaining8287 I That was voiced by a minor character in Apollo 13, but as you said, unknown if based on fact. Nothing Ive read or heard indicates any Apollo astronaut had such plans.

[@ultomatt]

The loss of the last three Apollo missions was such a waste. Years ago I read that the hardware for the final missions (maybe only 18 & 19) was bought and paid for. The only savings they would have seen was the mission support cost. With a roughly 400 million dollars (each) cost for the later missions, the congress and senate ended up throwing away roughly a billion dollars in flight ready hardware to save approximately 10 million dollars per mission. The mission I wish could have happened would have been Jack Schmidt's proposal for a farside landing. The only extra for this would have been a com satellite in a high lunar orbit to maintain communications. The landing site I would pick is the rim of King crater on the farside. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_(crater)

[@dougmc666]

Great point Matt, the missions I would have paid for would be a larger and refueled Skylab. Letting it burn up was dumb.

[@lancelotlake7609]

As a visitor to the Saturn V in Florida, I was awed and humbled to see this marvel up close instead of having it corroding on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. 500 years from now, having this physical artifact will be far more significant than an extra 3 day missing to the moon. We will.. one day, colonize the moon.. perhaps in our lifetime, perhaps not, but we will never have the opportunity to retain original Apollo hardware once it had been expended.

[@wrightmf]

I have read the same thing that cancelling the last three missions is like cancelling a car race after the car was already purchased (but never sold, simply made into a lawn ornament). Only savings would be gas and salaries of people (hey just keep them employed for a few more months to make their time after extensive training worthwhile).

[@mooney6306q]

I think there was a lot more to it than that. The budget cuts withing NASA at the time were eliminating so many people that it was felt that safety was going to be severely impacted. I'm not sure where the $10M number comes from. That doesn't even sound like enough money to support the 14 days of a mission. The problem you have is all the infrastructure has to remain in place through those missions so maybe for another 18 months and that cost could easily have been in the billions. For sure, all the hardware was already paid for, and you see some of it that's left at Marshall and other places.

[@kornami8678]

Don't forget that we were fighting a full scale war in Vietnam. I guess Vietnam was more important.

[@clemsonbloke]

You forgot Apollo-Soyuz Test Project which was an official part of the Apollo program and budget. That was the final curtain for Apollo in 1975 which demonstrated docking procedures between American and Soviet Space hardware.

[@CMDR_Yanick]

I'd loved to have seen the long duration Moon Bases, that the Apollo Appications Program proposed. Also at least two Apollo Lunar landings each year for the rest of the 1970s. Those things would have been wonderful to have seen :) Keep up the great work Amy!

[@cbrown2025]

CMDR Yamick the US does have moon and mars bases from operation Solar Warden.

[@TruthandjusticeXXL]

what you were never meant to see ..apollo 20 and spaceship: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2XJeJ9piLqZp5Y

[@lukestrawwalker]

Yeah the "LM truck" proposal was interesting-- land large habs or payloads like pressurized rovers instead of ascent stages on the Moon... very cool stuff! I would have loved to see one of the long-duration pressurized Lunar Rovers actually land on the Moon... They had plans (well, proposals) for lunar traverses lasting for a month or more via long-range pressurized rover that the crew would have lived in as they traveled from their landing site to another pre-positioned LM for the trip back into LLO to rendezvous with a CSM for the trip home. They could have accessed the lunar surface at any time basically with a "hard suit" designed to connect directly to the side of the pressurized rover-- open a hatch, slide into the suit, close the hatches behind you, and uncouple from the side of the rover... hop down do whatever you need to do. When you're done, center yourself in front of the hatch ring on the side of the rover, back up and lock the suit to the rover side, open the hatches, and crawl out. Definitely some VERY cool stuff! Later! OL J R : )

[@kevinadamson6830]

I love the way you don't skip beat or a breath talking about the subject matter. I feel more informed thanks to you because I love this information too. Thanks

[@connorgoosen2468]

It's really unfortunate that the Apollo hardware and Saturn V were not developed after the Moon Landings. Instead they did Space Shuttle which restricted us to LEO. Now SLS and Orion look like what should have been built after Apollo.

[@ricardoekerman369]

Hi Amy, congrats on your videoblog. I am always amazed about the details and comprehensiveness of your videos. I wonder how long it takes to produce each one. I would guess you need lots of research time. On top of that you have to structure the content, write, make all that information as most clear as possible. Excellent work.

[@petronius5931]

One of the best videos you have done. Thanks for all your hard work!

[@kelaarin]

You can thank Senator Walter Mondale for many of the budget cutbacks.

[@TheGroundedAviator]

That was 1967 and unlike in the series "From the Earth too the Moon" was supportive of space flight, just not the bad safety attitude. His main issue was the Phillips Report.

[@Easy-Eight]

William Proxmire, D, Wisconsin, really hated NASA with a passion.

[@TheGroundedAviator]

Just did a little reading on him, decent guy at heart I'd say but was really into badmouthing anything that was a waste of tax money which when it came down too it spaceflight largely is. Then he said the same with Nam and called McCarthy a disgrace and was critical of LBJ and Nixon. Then that was the time the parties were as diverse within themselves as the two with each other today.

[@Easy-Eight]

TGA, years past I was trained on radiation exposures. Basically, past lunar orbit people will receive huge doses of cosmic & solar radiation. There is no known & practical shielding that can stop the bulk of radiation. I've seen statistical studies where if a crew of 5 people were sent to Mars then it's a near certainty that one would die from radiation poisoning. Proxmire was not dumb. Smart adults do not entertain fantasy. Past the moon is only slow death from radiation.

[@TheGroundedAviator]

That was not why he did it but what you say is basically why there is no life as we know it on say Mars and only possible on a few of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

[@alanbell4297]

Very nicely made video. The cancelled 3 extended Apollo 18/19/20 lunar landings and AAP cancelled was a tragedy. Unlike Apollo 11 which was a publicity (boots and flags) mission, these were proper geology and science-based extended missions. Perhaps international funding like the modern ISS could have prevented cancellations specially within the AAP and Skylab maybe. I was blessed as a young child to have witnessed Apollo 10-17 missions and the Skylab missions ending in 1975 with the Apollo-Soyuz link up mission.

[@darrenmarchant1720]

in retrospect I am glad that we took time to reflect on what we learned from the Apollo program, and put so much work into launching satellites, as well as the extensive space station development, that helped to stabilize relations between the USA and Former USSR. It is now very important to expand our reach by engaging in a multi project approach to the space environment.

[@thomaslocke3939]

There was ne other Apollo Application Mission that did take place, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975. It required one new piece of equipment, the docking module.

[@JeremyEvansPhotography]

Great video, I've always wished the Apollo program continued long enough for Jim Lovell to have one more shot at landing.

[@isaachoffman2607]

Yeah, but his wife never would have said yes. Pete Conrad’s wife talked about what it’s like to have a husband who was an astronaut and fighter pilot in the Right Stuff.

[@billreese563]

Keeping the Apollo missions ongoing, would have been a head start to Mars and beyond

[@kevinwillett3654]

I forgot about this channel. Your videos are never recommended to me anymore. I finally got one today after probably 2 years.

[@Mr.little.man217]

Absolutely love your videos. Passion bleeds through your work. Learning shouldn't be boring and the most informative and enjoyable experiences learning are from people like you. Keep it up mam, the world needs you.

[@1chefbr]

Seriously we should've had a Moon Base decades ago! Thoughts on that? Amy. Love your videos!

[@josiahbahuaud2294]

By 1999 at lest. Then an accident could launch the moon into space.

[@blaudrache8434]

Agreed

[@taiming71]

Maybe if the DOD was not spending so much in south east Asia the program could have continued.

[@ARichardP]

taiming71 Exactly. Can bet also there were legitimate concerns about turning further moon missions into tools of the military-industrial complex.

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

Apollo was doomed from the start. Once there was no race to beat the Soviets, the government would've let it die slowly regardless of any conflicts. Remember, Apollo was taking place at the height of the conflict when we were spending more and more on it. By the time Apollo 17 had been launched, the Vietnam Conflict was all but over. In 2 months, the Paris Peace Accords would be signed, ending the conflict and the month after that, all US combat forces would be withdrawn from the country. The money was there, the government just didn't want to spend it on space.

[@seanwatts8342]

What would I like to have seen? I remember seeing the last Apollo mission launch while at the sitter's. Fast forward to 2017 and where's the colony on Mars we're supposed to have?

[@LfKoda]

Sean Watts Elon is taking over , sure thing he will send someone to mars for their own money :)

[@seanwatts8342]

Elon is taking _money_ but not delivering nearly as much as NASA has...when they were funded.

[@johnwalkup9133]

Good one Amy. It speaks to the whole "why didn't we go back" bs,, and it shows that the ideas being batted around back then weren't that different from today.

[@david_sonny_]

best tube channel ever

[@0cujo0]

Everyone blames Nixon for the budget cuts. But it seems no one remembers William Proxmire and his "Golden Fleece" awards?

[@davecarsley8773]

0cujo0 Or the whole thing about congress - and not the President - having the power of the purse in America. It's all rose-colored glasses. The public became very disinterested, very quickly.

[@bostonseeker]

Nixon was bowing to pressure to an increasingly truculent Democratic Congress at that point. He did fully support the Great Society and escalated the war in Vietnam well beyond where Johnson had left it. These were expensive, and eventually the needed money-printing gave us the Great Inflation of the 1970s.

[@tubewacha]

The sunken cost of the Vietnam war didn't help either.

[@craigory87]

I know it wasn’t discussed... but I think it would have been really cool to send 2 missions at once. Both taking off at the same time and having 2 different landing spots in the moon, still somewhat close to each other so the crew of the two missions could work together on the lunar surface! #whatcouldhavebeen

[@lukestrawwalker]

Jack Schmitt proposed a farside landing for the final mission, but was shot down (obviously). Had Apollo continued, I think a landing on the farside would have been a very good thing to do... with a few simple communications relay satellites in LLO, or a single telecom satellite placed in a halo orbit at L2, full-time communications with Mission Control on Earth with a landing or operations on the lunar farside COULD have been maintained, so the fact a lunar farside mission would have been out of direct line-of-sight contact with Earth would have been a non-issue... Sadly we stopped and burned the technology just when it was set to pay off... and traded it for a compromised shuttle design driven by nonsensical Air Force requirements that never were used anyway... Later! OL J R :)

[@jpsned]

Seems unduly complex, as you would have had to have two different sets of mission controls to monitor everything. I know Gemini had 6 and 7 up at the same time, but those missions were much less complicated than going to the moon.

[@johnp139]

luke strawwalker or a relay satellite in geostationary lunar orbit.

[@davidstinger1134]

That would just be extremely expensive, would be far simpler to just try to fit more astronauts in the same spacecraft. I know the Apollo CSM could be expanded to host up to 5 or 6 people.

[@craigory87]

@@davidstinger1134 True. I was just throwing it out there. I mean IF money wasn't an issue I just thought it would have been kind of cool.

[@sphinxrising1129]

Amy, we beat the Soviets to the moon, people lost interest, but more importantly, Congress lost interest, hence, Apollo was done.

[@crackedcandy7958]

Sorry, I'm gonna say it, those bangs are rockin. Love your channel. Always very in depth and informative.

[@henry-luke7541]

Apollo 20 was canceled in 1/1970, before even Apollo 13 had left, due to budget constraints. The Vietnam war ended 4/30/1975. We put our energy and resources into the wrong things. Imagine what we could have achieved by now if we had invested the money from Vietnam, 2 Iraq Wars and the ongoing war in Afghanistan-now on year 19! Add to that the additional loss of focus and resources into the daft Shuttle Program. Its 2020 now and the US doesn’t even have the capability to send manned missions to the space station. Hec, the current administration can’t even run a competent public health strategy to contain a virus outbreak. So forget no Saturn V rockets. We can’t muster paper fabric masks. We have fallen so far behind since the tremendous momentum started by the Apollo program. Its utterly, utterly tragic.

[@as03uk]

How about a video on art? The "nose art" on the mercury capsules, the mission patches, even the NASA logo! 😍

[@frasercain]

I like this idea a lot. An investigation into how the mission patches are created.

[@richardmourdock2719]

Fascinating stuff. I'd never heard of trying to use the LM for other purposes. Odd that it was all justified based on its "reliable propulsion system." As a geologist I wish the lunar geology missions would have continued...

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

Science was very much an afterthought with Apollo. It should have been more to the forefront.

[@johnp139]

hypergolic propellant

[@stenbak88]

Pretty and smart gotta love that combo

[@chrisst8922]

I think that this programme is one of the best one's that Amy's ever done.

[@davideilers8064]

Hey good stuff......the A missions involved both Saturns for CSM tests. I grew up with the Block 1 CSM as it was given to the State Museum in Nebraska. It flew on the AS-201 mission (02-66). Today living in Dallas I get to "Babble endlessly" as I jokingly say about CSM 101 or Apollo 7 as a museum Docent. the Apollo 15 mission was actually the 3rd H designated mission and in reality was the "Apollo 20" that was cancelled. It would have been similar to Apollo 14 in equipment. The "I" mission was the first casualty of the manned missions and was part of the changing "flux" of objectives in Apollo. 40 yrs after Apollo 11 it was fulfilled with the LRO mission in 2009 and is continuing in it's in manned way imaging the moon. I was a kid during Apollo (6yrs-10yrs) and huge fan so it's good to see a much younger fan that's so much knowledge. Makes me smile as listen to you explain these things to all. Thanks! David Eilers

[@GhostofCicero]

Where's the Universe Today link?

[@NickNathanson]

GhostofCicero I guess it was cancelled by congress

[@CptMikeTango1]

Was looking for this kind of comment

[@GhostofCicero]

It wasn't there when I made the comment. There was just a blank space after "check it out:".

[@frasercain]

Amy jumped the gun and released her video before ours was done processing. The link should be there now.

[@CptMikeTango1]

+Fraser Cain Wow, Frasier Cain himself! Hi there

[@rogerdean5757]

All of the missions, we should have never stop going to the moon.

[@Terascon]

Instead of wasting thousands of billions of dollars for the military the U.S. could already have a station on the moon if they had continued the Apollo program.

[@monke1987]

Terascon and they would be wayyyyyyy deeper in debt

[@Terascon]

@ Isaiah Schwartz: Maybe yes, maybe no. But let me guess: You are a member of the U.S. army or of the defence industry ;-)

[@monke1987]

Terascon lol no I love space, i just think that if we had done all of this, (while it would be very cool and beneficial for mankind) then we wouldn't have had enough money for anything else. Of course I could be wrong I don't know how much it would have costed and how it would affect the US budget. :)

[@monke1987]

The Tool Guy thousands of billions is trillions

[@monke1987]

The Tool Guy you do not have to be so mad, it isn't that big of a deal, but Guy saying "thousand of billions" does work, because, while it would be easier to say trillions, a thousand times a billion = I trillion

[@astrophonix]

I watched every Apollo mission that was televised in England. It was one of the worst disappointments of my life when the space station, moon base and Mars missions were cancelled and the space race effectively came to an end.

[@bobfletcher8196]

Hi Amy. I was fourteen when Apollo 11 landed on the moon,I was transfixed by the grainy pictures from the ancient TV set in my aunts front room in South Wales uk. The space race consumed me as a kid, ( I’m 62 now still a nasa fan ) I eat and slept nasa so I was really upset with the cuts that cancelled 18,19,20. Great informative videos really enjoy them and that you don’t have too many conspiracy nuts in the comments section thank you.

[@RobynHarris]

We could't afford Apollo. We had important bombs to build, bankers to bailout, and billionaires to bribe.

[@IronMan-tk8uc]

Right.

[@mederickblack2369]

The moon was Kennedy. Nixon wanted it forgotten.

[@Miklos82]

That's about the most cynical thing I've ever heard.

[@IronMan-tk8uc]

starman1968ful And totally true, don't forget about it.

[@Miklos82]

You cannot deny an opinion I hold.

[@WuzzzintME]

Can you dig into the history of EVA Suits and Space Helmets please!? I work underwater, and it would be awesome to see the differences in what is used to breath in space, and the process NASA used to come to this tech. Thanks for the awesome vids, please keep it up!

[@1pcfred]

My old oil furnace service tech worked on the Apollo spacesuits. Which isn't all that amazing when you consider that at its peak about 10% of the entire US workforce was in some way involved with Apollo in one way, or another.

[@Marin3r101]

I don't think there is that much difference other than the Pressure being close to 1 atm for NASA suits in a low/no atm environment. The deep sea suits would provide that as well but at increased pressures. Structurally they differ quite a bit.

[@dougmc666]

NASA backpacks have always been low pressure re-breathers and have never used helium. Only Gemini used hoses.

[@bostonseeker]

One of the unheralded aspects of the 1960s space program was the role that that both high-altitude balloons and submarines played in driving spaceflight. E.g., submarines were a big area for inertial guidance in the 1950s and a direct ancestor of the space inertial guidance systems.

[@66kbm]

Wheres Pete?

[@paulhorn2665]

Pete is looking for food somewhere...

[@66kbm]

Its just that there was this big plush pillow in the background.......lol

[@paulhorn2665]

You cant hump a pillow all the time, sometimes you need something to eat :-)

[@GlenHunt]

Pete is away training for the OTV-6 mission.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

+CSM101 Looks like Pete landed on Mars already. Wait..wait.. no.. (pulls back on image of Pete on gravelly surface) .. Pete just settled on his catbox.

[@kelli217]

I love the way your production values have steadily improved over the few years you've been doing this. Even down to your presentation style.

[@AndyChing-k5u]

Good video, the one thing that should be remembered was the tremendous lost of all that technical talent that was lost with the resulting layoff of the thosands of engineers at the premature end of Apollo. Was working on the SIVB and Skylab when it ended.

[@105C09]

The worst thing that happened to Apollo was Richard Nixon. It's a fact. He cancelled 18 through 20.

[@Patchuchan]

Nixon might have been the worst thing to happen to the country in the past 40 years as he cut NASA's funding and started the war on drugs.

[@jrogertrudel6356]

William Gratchic - I think Nixon knew it was all a hoax and a great waste of tax payer money.

[@brianmartin5758]

Congress holds the purse strings NOT the President. Learn some "separation of powers" common sense will ya'.

[@davecarsley8773]

Brian Martin Holy crap. An intelligent person on KZbin comments?? Where'd you come from?

[@bigmikeh]

We're from that other place, and we're here to help. :)

[@CaryCarpenter]

Just think, in another 44 years, we'll have the first warp flight.

[@philsmith3577]

Only problem with that hypothesis, is that we need a third world war in the intervening period!

[@ArmyJames]

Phil Smith That’ll probably happen a lot sooner than 44 years.

[@captaingenius-o1c]

Look, just build a Starship Enterprise and throw it up there in the sky----I'm sure Scotty will figure out the rest....Oh, just make sure you bolt down the bridge chairs, I've seen first hand on tv, they had issues with that...

[@jnichols3]

Skylab was to be launched on a Saturn IB, and then be outfitted by visiting astronauts post launch in the then empty Saturn IVB tanks. When the Moon landings were cancelled, a Saturn V (INT?) was freed up to allow an all-up station to be put up. One feature that survived the original design was the grided floors which were part of the fuel tanks. BTW was the launch vehicle for the Skylab actually a SATURN V or an INT variant? Publicly NASA referred to a "V", but was this the official internal designation?

[@mrdsn189]

HI Amy, what is that thing collapsing at 4:45 through 4:54 called? It is part of the LM docking apparatus right? To slide into a cone on the other side? How did it work? Thanks for all that you do. ^_^

[@RogHawk]

I think this is the article of Amy's addressing that... www.popsci.com/two-become-one-how-apollo-spacecraft-stuck-together

[@mrdsn189]

+RogHawk thanks for that. Honestly I'm more curious now though. The video above shows the docking probe (?) being removed internally. Amy did it come back to earth in the CM, did it get transferred to the LM and get left on the moon externally during EVA or perhaps remain in the LM and impact the moon?

[@1964cowdog]

That is one well stocked liquor cart.

[@jonathanrich1914]

I was thinking exactly the same thing! Oh well, one can't reach outer space without enough... fuel :-D

[@dhammarosi]

Yes, get ripped and then play with Mr Potatohead 😂 A day in a life

[@johnp139]

I wonder if she has any “MiG Juice”?

[@andypage9]

I wonder where we would be, literally and figuratively, had the Apollo program been allowed to continue.

[@jnichols3]

Imagine if the Saturn family had been kept, oh what 50 years of Saturn evolution have given us in 2019. The Saturn of the 21st century would not be the same as the 1960s. With its incremental changes it would be far more capable. Instead we are trying hard to develop a booster that when built, MIGHT be able to be further developed into something close to what we threw away those decades ago. Think about it. The first satellite in orbit left the pad atop an R-7 in 1957. 62 YEARS later the next ISS crew will launch on an R-7.

[@lukestrawwalker]

What booster is that?? SLS?? I got news, that thing isn't evolvable into ANYTHING... SRB infrastructure is inherently limited... That's why Ares V was failing when Constellation was cancelled. The single four-segment first stage, SSME liquid hydrogen upper stage Ares I was a total failure, once they figured out a total design of SSME was required to air-start it as a second stage engine (remember all shuttle engines are lit on the ground before liftoff). With no 500,000 lb thrust LH2 upper stage engine, Ares I wouldn't work. No room for 2 J-2S engines to get 500,000 lbs thrust, and besides 2 of them are too heavy. SO, they chose to redesign J-2S into J-2X, with more thrust. Course it got a lot heavier and the ISP went down in the process IIRC, making it a fuel hog. Higher engine mass means less payload to orbit, pound for pound actually on a 2 stage rocket (IIRC). That means extra fuel, which means a larger (longer) upper stage, which means more liftoff weight, which means a bigger first stage needed, hence the 5 segment SRB... which when tested on Ares I-X flight came back bent beyond possibility of reuse from the landing impact in the ocean, therefore non-viable. Ares I performance is too anemic, so more and more of the mission mass removed from Orion and shoved onto whatever "mission module" the Ares V would have to launch, increasing its performance requirements. SO, Ares V has to get bigger to compensate... Instead of four SSME's under a Shuttle ET sized 27.5 foot core, we have to have FIVE SSME"s under an all-new 33 foot diameter core stage. Bye bye shuttle ET tooling "savings" on building the core. More engines=more fuel required, therefore longer, HEAVIER core stage at liftoff, thus more thrust needed. Increase SRB size to compensate, from 4 segments to 5 segments, still MORE performance needed, so increase to SIX segments. Uh oh, six segment SRB's are SO heavy they'll crack the floor of the VAB, the crush the launch pads, and the crawler will sink into the Florida swamps without a major new crawlerway renovation AND an all-new twelve-track crawler with an extra pair of bogie trucks on it... (6 truck crawler). Cost=non-starter. SO how much weight CAN we support and move with the existing foundations in the VAB, pad, and existing crawlerway and crawler?? SO, we use 2 5.5 segment boosters, which is all we can support the weight of and move to the pad... (remember, SRB's are stacked and moved FULLY FUELED, unlike liquid rockets which are stacked and moved EMPTY, meaning they're only a tiny fraction of their liftoff weight on the pad when stacked and moved ...) Two 5.5 segment boosters isn't enough... we need more power, so add another SIXTH SSME to the core... then stretch the core to carry enough fuel for the additional SSME... at which point the whole thing starts to unravel... more engines= more thrust, yes, but more fuel required, thus bigger longer core, thus MORE WEIGHT, pretty soon it's too big to even fit in the VAB or on the pads... and you're STILL chasing more performance! Thus, Ares I and V are history along with the Constellation program. Gotta have something, so how about "Ares V Lite", go back to the five segment boosters, go back to the ET-diameter core and 4 SSME's, and presto the 70 tonne requirement of the SLS "block I requirement". Later we'll spend another Billion or so to develop filament-wound cased disposable super-SRB's (ASRB's, basically) and add a core engine, core stretch for fuel for it, and develop an all-new big "ascent stage" second stage with multiple J-2X engines, plus an all-new "in-space propulsion stage" using some other engine, since J-2X is too overthrusted, too heavy, and too inefficient in terms of specific impulse for the job... then "presto" you have your 130 tonne Congress-stipulated Mars rocket... SO after 10 years of developing for this supposedly faster and cheaper shuttle derived rocket to "replace Saturn V", the final product isn't even capable of what they're saying, not, without another probably 10 years and several BILLION dollars in development for the advanced disposable SRB's, the new ascent second stage, and the final in-space propulsion stage. PLUS, SLS uses all that expensive shuttle hardware, like SRB's and SSME"s, in EXPENDABLE mode, meaning they all end up in a million pieces on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean after EVERY launch... they can only launch SLS block one about a half-doxen times before they're out of SRB's, all the steel casings will have been destroyed at that point. They've refurbished all the Shuttle SSME"s for use on SLS, but every flight will burn up four of them, so again like 5-6 flights and they'll all be gone. YEs tehy redesigned a "cheap, throwaway" version of the SSME, the "RS-25D" that's supposed to take its plac,e but they'll be expensive too-- the SSME is fundamentally an expensive ,complex engine design. What are the odds of SLS Block 2 ever being developed?? Especially with SpaceX and Blue Origin already planning stuff to blow it out of the water performance wise, AND be reusable?? SLS takes all the most expensive bits of the shuttle, and uses them in EXPENDABLE mode, wasting them after ONE FLIGHT. Because of this and the low flight rates of 1 launch of SLS every 2-3 years, which is a TERRIBLE use of the supporting infrastructure (remember shuttle flew up to nine times a year at its height, even in the post-Columbia disaster flightrate of 2 per year, that divided the infrastructure costs over those two flights, amortizing the support costs over multiple flights. EACH SLS mission will have to carry ALL the infrastrucutre and support costs for 2-3 YEARS on EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT; this alone will push each SLS flight cost up to over a BILLION dollars... Shuttle was more expensive than Saturn V, and shuttle was "only" about $400 million per flight, according to NASA, but we now know with the development costs and support costs of the entire program, each shuttle flight was more than a billion dollars each. SLS is poised to surpass that figure by a longshot. And all that BEFORE payload and mission support costs! SLS is a road to nowhere... Later! OL J R :)

[@jnichols3]

Yes, what you said!

[@All2Meme]

I am sorry to have seen Apollo 19 get canceled, as Fred Haise never got the chance to land on the moon (Haise was the lunar module pilot on Apollo 13). Bill Pogue and Jerry Carr did get into space on Skylab 4 with Ed Gibson. Bill Pogue was the astronaut that first got me interested in spaceflight, as he was my grandmother's cousin.

[@mattypusplatypus3340]

So much we missed out on... I suppose the 'glass half-full' way of looking at it is to be grateful that we went to the moon at all (and for Skylab, of course). Great video as always! :)

[@eternalreign2313]

I'm wondering what the future of NASA might have been had the Apollo program continued after Apollo 20, and funding hadn't become a problem. Would we have been going to Mars by the 80's or 90's already? I blame the Russians. Had their program not failed I imagine we would have had to race them to Mars as well.

[@bostonseeker]

I think we would not have gone to Mars at that time, as it was and is technically too difficult and dangerous for people. What would have happened instead is what the video shows -- extensive Earth and lunar orbit applications and eventually a permanent base on the Moon. The unbelievable thing is that, while we've progressed dramatically in computer and communication technology since then, we don't have the spaceflight or industrial capacity to do this anymore.

[@ekscholl]

I love Mr Potato Head

[@JohnDoe-yj5ng]

If they were able to return any of the Saturn V stages, like Spacex does with its Falcon 9 cores, then we would have a colony on Mars by now.

[@tx2sturgis]

Love the 60's props in the background. I grew up with some of that stuff....

[@pschroeter1]

As a kid in the optimistic space crazy 60s, I remember all these paintings for books and magazines where an astronaut would be standing on a ridge on the moon overlooking a complex of tubes making up a moonbase, usually with some sort of space shuttle taking off or landing in the distance, and some sort of space van driving on the surface.

[@artistjoh]

Killing Apollo was a mistake that is usually blamed on The Shuttle. What nonsense. Both Apollo and Shuttle were curtailed by politicians who lacked vision and started cutting both programs for political reasons and supporting hardware that created local jobs without thinking about how that fitted into a bigger picture. Apollo was brilliant and the Shuttle would have been even better but the penny pinching reduced it down to a dangerous shadow of the original vision. Together the two ships would have launched the manned exploration of the Solar System. Instead the cost cutting cost us one of the ships and hobbled the other. It was never given the resources to make it work as first planned. Kennedy had leadership and vision. Johnson was his political wingman who could twist arms in congress. Sadly Nixon had none of their abilities and he left the space program relatively rudderless and at the mercy of small minded congressmen. Since then not a single President has had the vision thing. They are managers who just kick the can down the road. We need another Kennedy.

[@lukestrawwalker]

Did you ever read Bill Anders' interview?? It's online somewhere. Bill Anders was of course one of the first three astronauts to orbit the Moon on Apollo 8. He had a particularly sad turn of events-- He had managed to become one of the leading experts on the LM during the run-up to the Apollo missions, and landed on one of the early crews as a "LM pilot" on what became Apollo 8-- the only mission in the program to fly to the Moon WITHOUT a lunar module! He assessed his probabilities of returning to the Moon as either a Commander or LMP on a later mission to land on the Moon and decided it was almost impossible, because the normal rotation was from LMP to CMP (Command Module Pilot) three missions later, and then to Commander 3 missions after that. Of course the possibility existed that one could be "bumped up" the rotation due to crew problems (like replacing Mattingly with Jack Swigert as CMP on Apollo 13, for instance, or Collins' neck surgery taking him out of the rotation and replacing him with Jim Lovell on Apollo 8 (IIRC) which led to Lovell being on Apollo 13 as Commander. BUT, it was at best unpredictable and somewhat unlikely, and just looking at the rotations Bill Anders figured his chances of landing on the Moon were nearly zilch, and he retired from the Astronaut Corps, because he didn't want to go back to the Moon "just to orbit it" as a CMP. He ended up as a consultant to NASA and the government on aerospace technology issues. ANYWAY, in this interview, he told the story of how he was consulted by the Nixon Administration on the Space Shuttle. He had presented several different approaches to a shuttle program that NASA had envisioned as possibilities. One of them basically involved developing a small, partially reusable spaceplane orbiter capable of landing on a runway and carrying astronauts into orbit, launched via and expendable "low cost" designed rocket made to be built "cheap" and dropped into the ocean after launch, to keep costs down. The other approach was to develop the "whole hog" fully-reusable space shuttle with a flyback reusable first stage and reusable fully-self contained orbiter/second stage that they had originally envisioned (essentially, the Faget orbiter, with a fully reusable flyback booster and a fully-self contained, fully-reusable orbiter with NO disposable External Tank). He outlined the benefits and costs and risks associated with each program, and when asked for his opinion, given the likely funding environment (and figuring that the shuttle would end up being cut to the bone and cobbled together on a shoestring, as it finally was) and the fact that there was ZERO experience at the time designing and developing a fully-reusable space PLANE design capable of launching vertically from Earth's surface and accelerating to orbit at Mach 25, then reentering Earth's atmosphere, transitioning to a stable glide, and making a controlled runway landing at 250 knots, he proposed they adopt the "gradual" approach, developing the small, reusable orbiter spaceplane launched via a new "low cost" expendable rocket, and then build on the experience gained to a "fully reusable" system once they had experience and a knowledge base of the challenges and problems and solutions learned on the lower-cost, smaller vehicle. Nixon's advisors seemed pleased with the presentation and that was that. Later Anders got a call from one of Nixon's top men, who asked him bluntly, "On those shuttle proposals, which one will mean the MOST JOBS for the California aerospace industry (Nixon's constituents and of course a powerful lobby), the little one or the big one?" Anders replied, "The big one, of course" without really thinking about it, since it was rather OBVIOUS that a large fully-reusable shuttle would require a MUCH bigger development project and engineering effort to design and more workers and technicians to construct it. "Fine", the advisor said, "We'll go with that..." and hung up the phone... Anders was a big flabbergasted by that and sadly realized then that the shuttle would undoubtedly end up being compromised and corners cut as the developmental problems mounted, and it would end up a mess... which it did. One can only guess at what would have happened had the politicians decided to develop the "low cost booster" (which could have been used for various other things as well) and a smaller, pathfinder shuttle orbiter to ride it into space... Whether we'd have been stuck with a mini-shuttle or if it would have led to a MUCH better and more capable "Shuttle 2.0" at some point is debatable, BUT at any rate we WOULD have ended up with a "low cost" booster rocket to launch the mini-shuttle, which of course would have had a lot more flexibility as a payload launcher or even the basis of an enhanced design down the road such as a "heavy" version using common cores or something similar, which would have made heavy lift missions (like possibly a return to the Moon or large space station modules) possible... I downloaded the interview years ago, so I know it's online. Unfortunately my computer died and the hard drive it was on with it... Later! OL J R : )

[@stratman103]

They wouldn't have given Lovell another crack at it?

[@conroypaw]

More of a diplomatic mission than an exploration mission - Apollo-Soyuz (1975).

[@ChristopherDoll]

It's tragic that the later Apollo missions were cancelled. Those were some great landing sites and I hope that maybe one day we'll get some landings there in the future. AAP had some great stuff too - the Venus flyby mission would've been very cool. Great video!

[@johnc.bojemski1757]

I love the "Mr.Potatoeheadd" on the shelf overlooking Amy's right shoulder! He and "Pete" have the best seats to her lectures!

[@roundish7796]

I dont care about this, I just clicked cause this gorgeous girl caught my eye

[@georgemcmillan9172]

You, are just too damned cute!

[@davidkeenan5642]

And she's really short, sometimes when she's co-presenting programmes she has to stand on a box :-) One of the sweetest things I've even seen.

[@rpc717]

I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who noticed.

[@Zoomer30]

Just another reason to not like Nixon. Gutted NASAs budget, told them to make a Shuttle that really had no mission and was very dangerous. Nixon, the gift that kept on giving.

[@brianmartin5758]

God people like you are STUPID. Either show some data (other than Google or Wiki) by citing credible sources (links) or shut the F**k up. You sound like a liberal college professor or "global warming scientist" that spew lies. You progressive Nixon hating hippies are the result of Berkley being on FIRE and NO FREE SPEECH there. The burden is on YOU and YOUR kind to prove your so called truths, NOT ME to prove your untruths.

[@Easy-Eight]

Why don't you google "rev ralph albernathy" and learn something. Also, the USAF demanded the shuttle had to have the ability to carry the keyhold spy satellite. Stupid SJW.

[@JoeHacking]

As an Apollo baby who was obsessed with the moon landings at a very early age, I approve of this video.

[@stillnocouch]

You are absolutely the best on or off the planet at what you do. Thank you !

[@davidbriggs264]

One question is what would it take to restart the Apollo Program? And here, I am not talking about going back to what we did back in the early 1970's, but what would it take to build NEW Saturn V (and beyond) Rockets? They could lift some fairly fantastic loads into orbit, and could we take that technology and use it to lift that much, if not more, into Earth Orbit.

[@chrisbritt4266]

I don't know if it's true or not but I heard that the last actual Apollo mission that went off found orange dirt and they had planned on putting actual scientist on the next few missions and they had put into they wanted land back in that same area so that they could examine more of that area because the orange dirt would have proved possibly that there was a volcanic past and they wanted to study that more

[@JosephFuller]

I love Amy's passion for space history. These are always informative and relaxing to watch videos as, and I feel like Amy has probably read this a thousand times before, she is certainly the most beautiful woman on KZbin, imo, not just for her appearance but also for the rest of her that she shares with us. ^^

[@pforce9]

I have looked all over the internet and I cannot find a single video or animation of space ships docking from start to finish. They approach with something looking like a complicated molly bolt, you see it attach and the camera fast forwards to them opening the hatch. Not one picture of the docking being transferred from that molly bolt thing t whatever holds it when that molly bolt is removed or how it gets removed. Any info on that?

[@michaeltuz608]

A truly compelling "what if?" video. Hard to pick a favorite Apollo mission that never was; they all sound so intriguing, with each phase building upon the previous one. Yes, at least we did get Skylab. But there was so much potential right at our finger tips...

[@r_a_]

1:52 D : MANNED CSM/LM EARTH ORBITAL Type should be CSM & LM as you said "and". / stands for 'or'. (although I'm not sure 😬)

[@johnnyray5981]

Young lady, thanks for bringing forth what could have been. In the late sixties I was a High Schooler, and longed that we do much in the vision for lunar exploration as outlined by JFK. Post JFK we seemed to keep the vision, but Congress was a very wary public servant that altered the Apollo program. Like the Warren Report, they came up with so many missions, and that is it. Post Vietnam, you would think they didn't remember Apollo or even try to spell Vietnam. Peace to you, I love you, having watched you over time. I hope in the future America can recapture its goals. Until then, I believe the Chinese will be the ones to once again walk on the moon. One benefit, will be that we, through Chinese eyes will be able to verify that we did do it in the first place. An internationalist, I have no problem with the Chinese, but I often scorn our own NASA for not realizing its potential. Alas, life is full of despair, unresolved goals, and over watch by a government that has outlasted its usefulness. Peace to you lovely lady!

[@jpsned]

Schmitt as LMP on Apollo 18? Seems unlikely as he had performed the exact same job on Apollo 17. Perhaps instead of Schmitt, make it Joe Engle, who was originally set to be the 17 LMP until replaced by Schmitt.

[@robertsuhrer5604]

The US was way ahead of everyone. NASA was so innovative and the tech trickled down to everything else. Great video...

[@CountArtha]

I really like the idea of a mature, operational Apollo/Saturn architecture like what the Russians were able to do with Soyuz. Apollo could carry five astronauts to Low Earth Orbit, and the service module was WAY overbuilt even for the Moon missions. Putting a LM-derived service module on the Command Module would have given you a very capable, but lightweight spacecraft that could launch on a much cheaper rocket, allowing back-to-back Skylab missions with crew rotations every few months.

[@Razorusskie]

If you ever visit Cape Kennedy be sure to visit the Saturn V center. There, suspended on wires from the roof, you will also see the originally planned Lunar Module for Apollo 15. This is the one for the mission that Amy told us was cancelled. Instead, a "J - mission" Lunar Module was used for Apollo 15' which carried the first of 3 Lunar Rovers.

[@cwschaef]

Any idea how many parts for these canceled missions were created but then not used? For example how many unused lunar modules or parts for these lunar modules, if any?

[@Bort1965]

We should've had a much smoother transition from Apollo to shuttle programs. What I mean is, no gap between the end of Apollo & start of shuttle. So filled in with at least 3 additional Apollo's (after #17), plus Skylab,& Apollo-Soyuz. In addition, there should've been many more flights to Skylab, including in late 70s, to fix it (via Apollo Saturn 1B, to EVA fix Skylab, & come back on an Apollo capsule, even if it had to be smaller, for Saturn 1B. Some of Skylab missions were launched on SAT 1B anyway, so the hardware was there.

[@caav56]

And use the Saturn-Shuttle configuration. Kinda more expensive, but no dangerous SRBs (since it uses first stage of Saturn-I C instead of them) and, therefore, no Challenger catastrophe.

[@populistrevolution5197]

Is there a link to frasier canes video? Can't find it

[@Hobbes746]

it’s in the video description.

[@needforspace2533]

My question is when the LM was tilted backwards during landing, how did the astronauts remain standing upright on there feet? Or were they still in micro-g as soon as they touched down