Why The US is Struggling to Return to the Moon

[@OctavianTech]

Apollo 17 was 1972 not 1952

[@riff2072]

Good thing we got that straightened out.

[@beauhaeker804]

Came here to point out the same mistake

[@andrewgrandfield7214]

Rough start to the video

[@TheVillageIdiotUk]

Unless he knows something we don’t 🤔

[@Foodconsumer2137]

@@denverbraughler3948 he probably just misspoke. just because someone said the wrong year doesn't mean they are clueless

[@camdenharper7244]

People don't understand, neil Armstrong was one of the best the best pilots on earth. A test pilot that was used to snap decisions to correct things he didn't fully understand. He deserves more credit than he get. He didn't just ride there and say something

[@raven4k998]

yeah and the ai of today is just not as good no where near as good sadly😭😭

[@Mark-qw8lc]

You are 1000% correct. Armstrong piloted numerous flying machines that did their utmost to kill him and he always lived another day to tell the story and help engineer a solution to the machine's flaws. Neil was a brilliant, quiet, humble man which belied his nerves of steel and absolute raw courage.

[@InXLsisDeo]

Armstrong was famous for keeping his cool in the most nerve wracking and desperate situations.

[@1.4billion65]

Except he didn't go to the moon.

[@THEfonz-s5u]

@@1.4billion65 Every piece of evidence says that he did. You are an anonymous troll on the internet bringing no credible evidence to support your claims nor to counter all of the evidence that supports Armstrong. Weigh those two facts together and I’m going to give Armstrong credit and you a minus.

[@LTLC]

I love how at about 11:30 you see the "emergency exit- do not block" sign being blocked by some big ass cart.

[@BrunoDias1234]

BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon

[@mitchgisborne1369]

Safety suggestion

[@vvwvvwvv]

ok OSHA

[@ontheruntonowhere]

The door is some distance behind the object in the foreground. There's plenty of room to open it.

[@sriramneravati5048]

OSHA WHO?

[@imconsequetau5275]

0:25 Intuitive machines was NOT landing with a visual guidance system. That LIDAR system was mistakenly left disabled before launch. Instead, it was landing with an inertial guidance system that was calibrated in lunar orbit by RADAR from Earth. This left an error in both vertical velocity and horizontal velocity during touch down. The craft literally dragged the landing gear sideways against the surface after a hard collision.

[@PWNAGE703]

How the hell did they forget the LiDAR 😂

[@highlandspeaker]

Ummm yeah these guys probably should be fired.

[@dasrit3]

@@PWNAGE703 they forgot to take off the safety cover before launch...

[@therabbithat]

​@@PWNAGE703 they had a lot to remember, OK?

[@imconsequetau5275]

I'm guessing "remove the LIDAR eye safety cover" was never included in a critical checklist. These lockouts should have a very conspicuous tag saying "remove before launch", and include a serial number. Maybe only the tag was removed, *_not the eye safety cover._*

[@James-Alai]

"We know where every boulder is on the moon"- $100,000,000 lander trips over a boulder.

[@SleepyHarryZzz]

Moon alien prank probably

[@tylabyla]

we know where every big boulder 😔

[@cookingwithkimbap4432]

@@SleepyHarryZzzyeah yeah alright sceptic. I bet you’re Republican.

[@electricminecrafter]

@@tylabyla define big

[@Gunni1972]

I think, updating that map, because of meteors or asteroids might be important, if you wanna keep it accurate.

[@Chris-ok4zo]

Many KSP players can attest to how difficult it is to land on a foreign celestial object.

[@relafleur5114]

And KSP makes it 1000x easier than it it is irl

[@lord_kerman]

Facts

[@Etrehumain123]

It's very easy to land, but my tank of fuel is empty once Im there. it's just hardcore to send enough fuel to ever come back and get another orbit on Earth to then splash down, even with rendezvous and refuelling on Earth orbit, which is already a challenge in itself

[@cjay2]

Funny, but the older I get, and I'm old now, the less I believe that the US went to the moon, especially given how they are behaving now. Just saying.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

​​@@Etrehumain123now think how hard it would be if everything was 8 times bigger(?) ,this is ksp RP1

[@Etrehumain123]

I think you meant Apollo 52 in 1917, it's easy to mix those numbers I know

[@asynchronicity]

😸

[@hateEdge83]

😂

[@BrunoDias1234]

BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon

[@tobiasryden5793]

bomboclat💀

[@mitchgisborne1369]

​@@BrunoDias1234 bro, could you say that one more time? I didn't catch that.

[@Stone_624]

MEANWHILE : "[Japan's Moon Sniper Jan 2024] achieved such precise landing on the moon, it would be the equivalent of shooting a Skin Cell from London (UK) to Cairo (Egypt), and having it land on a specific Grain of Rice" And then even though it landed essentially upside down, It was able to get enough light to startup and correct itself. And even though it was designed for 1 lunar day, it ended up working for Three.

[@TylerAyyy]

still an unfair comparison since you're comparing a federal government agency (JAXA) to privately owned COMPANYS. The US equivalent (NASA) has car sized rovers on mars bro, don't kid yourself, American excellence is real in this case

[@austerepotato3159]

@@TylerAyyy Suuuuuurrrreeeee.....

[@davidsteeley1459]

@@TylerAyyy Little harsh on the tone, but that's a fair point. Still an awesome feat of precision and good design on japan's part.

[@danielhicks1824]

​@@TylerAyyyand the US is a massive country by comparison... can't really call out the difference in scale in one direction but not the other

[@linkkhanato6320]

​​@@TylerAyyyThe comparison is more on how NASA is losing said excellence because of funding, while the japanese are getting better. NASA is being asked to be involved in dumb projects like Mars, which I'm sorry to say is a futile and fruitless effort, while the other is rapidly progressing on making a front to the moon, which is essentially a giant refueling station NASA should have been all over years ago. Excellence means nothing when the people deciding things are directly stagnating efforts because "it sounds cool." This country use to be pragmatic.

[@ritobs]

China: we are launching our new Lunar prog- US: Alright boys, its time to explore freedom

[@piccalillipit9211]

this was my comment: *Why The US is Struggling to Return to the Moon ?* cos its an ex-empire that is totally given over to making billionaires richer - not achieving things China will likely get there before the US

[@migaloo364]

Hilarious and original. Never heard that one before.

[@radbod82]

@@migaloo364 MERICUHHHHH

[@man-from-2058]

​@@migaloo364woah guys the sarcastic comedy police is here

[@michaeltse321]

Landers have freedom. Free the landers from the CCP - lol

[@SolarWebsite]

Simple: because back then, the US had a reason to go. A stupid, childish reason, but a reason nonetheless. And also back then there was a greater willingness to take risks. People died but the program continued. That same kind of reason is starting to materialise now (China) but the pressure is not really on yet. That may or may not happen, but when it does, a new space race may erupt. Better than a war, or course.

[@linecraftman3907]

they also had a fuckton of money 🤣

[@c1ph3rpunk]

3 decade engineer, a large swath of the interviews I’ve seen with the ones working on these projects aren’t going to get us there, this one included. Broadly, the quality of engineers has really dropped off over the past 30 years.

[@hostedbysimples5416]

You didn't watch the video. It's not because they are unwilling to take risks, it's because technical problems make the landing hard, they need a more reliable navigation system to guide the ship to not crash itself. It's a problem right now with unmanned ships, it's a catastrophy with manned ones. Would you volunteer for a trip which had a 50% chance of you dying?

[@andrewfidel2220]

​@@linecraftman3907 Yup, 2.5% of GDP for a decade, not far off from our current military spending! NASA now gets 0.2% of the federal budget and .001% of GDP and that's for everything they do.

[@CheesyMez]

@@c1ph3rpunk I mean, the hardware is already in testing, we have already sent missions recently, JPL have achieved much more ridiculous feats of engineering (look at the perseverance and curiosity skycranes, or JWST for example. i sincerely doubt the quality of engineers has dropped.

[@giant_sandwich7748]

They face the same difficulties that we face in Kerbal space program What a small world

[@Bonhomme7h]

The tall lander VS wide lander brought back so many memories.

[@NoahGooder]

ksp is more or less a training program

[@jonslg240]

Damn, over 20% of this video is advertising Luckily it's at the end, so we don't have to watch it if we don't want to.. HOWEVER a lot more people will watch a 16 minute video vs a 20 minute video. An insane percentage of people won't even click on a 20min video but will a 16min video. I feel bad for them. However, that's something that needs to be considered.

[@diego.sales1]

After almost 60 years, it is still incredible the level of commitment on a Societal level, that the US had in the 1960s in order to get to the moon, and the extraordinary bravery and skill of the astronauts to actually land on the moon....

[@InXLsisDeo]

At that time, people believed in science, not antivax, chemtrails or other stupidities, they weren't fed with lies and the Republicans didn't bet on making the population dumber by underfunding education.

[@tlsvd5842]

US landed on the moon by Hollywood

[@uncleTee2023]

If you believe that, then Santa Claus is real for you!

[@gappuma7883]

It was filmed in a studio, they just took a long flight

[@spanishinput]

Car companies: Autonomous vehicles are safe now NASA scientists: Actually, even avoiding a static rock is hard

[@raven4k998]

they simply do not breed them like they used to sadly😭😭

[@Jeff-i8u]

@@raven4k998 Systematic Marxist/Socialist indoctrination assure men can NOT be like the men who created Apollo. Only a tiny number of women were part of that and today MOST women would not have what it takes - just as MOST MEN do not either. Central to STEM are the abilities to: • Argue and criticize - central to ALL science and engineering • Allowed to make mistakes - perfection in one step of anything is IMPOSSIBLE unless you never actually push the envelope • Allow time to conform to what nature demands

[@kenmurray4005]

Musk has been saying his cars will be fully autonomous next year - every year for the past ten years. Still only at level 2. He also said he’d land people on Mars in 2024 after landing on the moon. Now he says he’ll land people on Mars this century.

[@bobfg3130]

Only Tesla says that and Tesla is full of bs. Same for Musk.

[@omirlino]

How many crash’s has Tesla had while training their AI to drive during development? NASA doesn’t send up a lot of craft and crash them to train them

[@TiagoNugentComposer]

NASA: Can we have money to go back to the moon please Congress: best I can do is $3

[@BrunoDias1234]

BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon

[@undertow2142]

And we’re giving $2.99 of it to Boeing.

[@Mike-jv8bv]

Also congress "best i can do is launder another 72billion to Ukraine"

[@goldie819]

Buddy, if Russia re-annexes all the former soviet states, you'll have a much bigger problem on your hands than sending old military gear to Ukraine

[@Will-eq7uh]

@@Mike-jv8bvno way you actually believe that ahahahahahha absolute moron

[@TheoneandonlyRAH]

honestly after watching all these videos, i dont really get how we got to the moon in the first place? a review video would be great, less on the tech but more on the probabilities and the risk tolerance. all the ways in which risks were taken which are not acceptable now.

[@JoryBlake]

We didn’t

[@JoryBlake]

Give me a break with this horseshit

[@Watchdog_McCoy_5.7x28]

Hollywood basement.

[@davidk1308]

That would be good. And would be a point of perspective why it seems going to the Moon is so much harder now despite technology advancing.

[@damiengeorges3344]

250 billion dollars is how. It was seen as a national and cultural priority, not as an experiment, and we used much, much more ressources to get there. Even then, it took multiple preliminary missions; there's a reason why it the first landing was the 11th Apollo mission.

[@JETHO321]

Remember the toys, they weeble and they wobble but they dont fall down? Thats the shape they should make the probes. A spherical shell with an offset interior mass so that they dont have to worry about the tipping.

[@regexrationalist346]

A gyroscope...?

[@regexrationalist346]

After some research it may literally be called a 'weeble' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeble

[@spudeleven5124]

It's what the Soviets did, and it worked.

[@acefighterpilot]

If you read the familiarization manuals Grumman provided to NASA, it's readily apparent that none of the CLIPS landers are as well engineered as the Lunar Module. For instance, each propellant valve on the LM could be independently isolated by another valve, thus precluding a loss of propellant scenario as occurred to the Astrobotic lander. I truly hope we emulate Grumman's systems engineering when it comes time for humans to return to the lunar surface, no matter their flag.

[@ontheruntonowhere]

Except for Russia or Israel.

[@jasonariola6363]

Look here commie lover , america will make its way back to the moon ,

[@xponen]

also, in this lander they don't have redundancy for landing-camera as stated at 5:26 . I think NASA-contract is shaped in a way that contractor aren't worried about mission failure? at least not worried enough to justify installing backup for a camera that will end up working anyway.

[@alexbian5567]

Interesting observation. How much cost it would increase, if we take Grumman's approach?

[@amorphousblob2721]

@@xponen Or the engineers just aren't as talented as the ones who built the ships for the Apollo missions.

[@JigilJigil]

You have to keep in mind that both Astrobotic with 130 employees, and Intuitive Machines with 250+ employees, are *small companies,* despite the failure, it's great to see that small private companies are attempting to land on the Moon.

[@IzzyTheEditor]

Private? You mean government funded. Don't get it confused kid this is an overbloated government funded fiasco pure and simple. NASA is a relic that needs to go away because even the crap of private organizations have a far superior safety record and can do things so so much cheaper. And faster.

[@isned2000]

This. The Apollo lunar module was developed by Grumman, an established defense contractor with tends of thousands of employees, not counting any NASA personnel and subcontractors that also assisted. The total inflation adjusted cost for the program was 21.65 billion dollars. In comparison these new landers are being built by absolutely tiny teams on shoestring budgets, and they are being asked to solve some really tricky problems that Grumman didn't have to consider on top.

[@cjay2]

@@isned2000 Yeah, like landing.

[@testboga5991]

True, but it's also pretty idiotic to go there in the first place

[@julioc.7760]

​@@isned2000tru dat

[@virtualdrudgery]

This reminds me of the citizens of the late stages of Rome. They were dumbfounded as to who built their city. The coliseum, the aqueducts, the bridges, etc. They lost all the know-how and speculated that it must've been built by giants or by gods. Now most Americans believe that we never went to the moon as they believe it was never possible, not knowing that the industry, the people, the tools and know-how are all gone and dispersed because the whole thing lost its drive after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[@robymaru03]

That's why record are kept, I could be a great scientist and acomplish many thing but if I didn't keep record and pass the knowledge to my son, my grandsons might just think I was just a lucky conman.

[@mantha6912]

To be fair, I don't think MOST Americans think that. That said, the current intellectual state of America is thanks to Republicans spending decades defunding education and promoting conspiracy mindsets.

[@qwadratix]

Besides, apparently the earth has been established to be flat by a majority vote in Congress.

[@STho205]

​However those records of "How I Did It" was for innovative and highly skilled craftsmen that just don't exist anymore. You don't see too many 17yos rebuilding carburators modern mechanics making parts on a shop table. A few but not nearly as many as in 1968...and most who are doing it are well past the mandatory retirement age. Today's engineers wait for the computer simulation or the computer diagnosis before moving. So those notes are as interesting as seeing calligraphy

[@mrtopcat2]

Well, there isn’t all that much left of “Made in America”.

[@jennyohara4011]

Maybe just Maybe they never went there with people in the first place!

[@diegoflores9237]

They never did

[@absolutesandman9525]

@@jennyohara4011 Exactly!

[@Rob-py8pl]

Absolutely!

[@irritatedanglosaxon1705]

Not maybe but indeed

[@jjavalon]

That’s WHAT I think too!

[@peterj5751]

We should remember that man landed on the moon, not a computer. The skill of two extremely skilled and trained humans improvised to land. Self driving cars have trouble seeing every parked truck so it is a big step to expect it to see a grey boulder on a grey surface. They will get there but it is no surprise that there are early issues.

[@ThomasKundera]

Actually the landing was done by the AGC, the astronauts would only feed it with inputs. I doubt any human could keep the machine level, manually controlling each 16 or so thrusters at a time. The AGC has a fully automatic landing (P66 if I remember well), but no astronaut used it (they remained in "manual" mode, which means a joystick to tell the computer when to head to). Engineer's first design had no manual mode at all, but astronauts insisted for it, afaik. And agree that the system would have been totally unable to spot boulders or anything, and humans were needed to direct the LM at a suitable location.

[@uqs57bju]

It's not that big of a leap in all honesty. The grey boulder on a grey surface doesn't matter when they are using LiDAR and other radar techniques. There are limitations to each radar type, which is why a combination of radar types will honestly make the computer able to judge a situation way better than we can with our eyes. Optical illusions are very real and it's not something that we can overcome. A computer can if it's given the right sensory system (we are stuck with our eyes). Computers are amazing and they will be able to get the job done. It's just not exactly easy to create the perfect code that takes everything into consideration. That's where the astronauts come in. They can make decisions when the parameters are too off for a computer to work. Computers can already land planes and they can also catch or land discarded boosters, the latter is something that no person will ever have the slightest chance of doing. It can definitely land a slow moving object on the moon if coded correctly. Technology has come a long way since we last were on the moon.

[@peterj5751]

@ I partially agree but planes land based on various radio transmitters giving precision approaches on a known surface. These facilities don’t exist on the moon. Self driving cars have shown themselves to be less than perfect at spotting things that a human can easily. It’s not that I am saying they won’t get there, only that we seem to perhaps to be further off than it seems.

[@nikolatasev4948]

There were a bunch of unmanned soft landings on the Moon before Apollo 11. USSR's Luna 9 and 13, USA's Surveyor program. Presenting the "we used to land with humans before, landing with machines is harder now" is misguided.

[@tylerfh2012]

There were successful autonomous lunar landers before the human landings. Check out the Soviet Luna missions and the American Surveyor missions

[@THEYTHINKTHEYAREGODS]

And this is why people think we didn't go to the moon

[@GodGuy8]

Its gonna take the average american another 60 years to truly start to consider that

[@brightestfuture]

there is a burger king on the moon

[@DrBuddah]

you never went there HAHA

[@DrBuddah]

the earths magnetic field wont protect you at the moon and one solar wind and its gg and nasa knew about this so they faked the landing lmao you dumbos

[@Topgun5t]

We never went to the moon.

[@austinlarson1528]

We must return. Monke was meant for da moon.

[@AngeloXification]

Moon apes unite!

[@ShadowFox10587O]

We will return. Apes together strong.

[@alex-q8-q9]

TO THE MOON! 📈

[@benjamindover4337]

The scientists asked chatGPT how to go to the moon, but it didn't know, so we have to wait for the next version and hope

[@andresmonagas7662]

Moonke

[@blackoak4978]

Most people don't understand the difference between a proof of concept and an optimized final product. It's why there is an assumption of ineptitude regarding current attempts, or of impossibility regarding the first attempt. The proof of concept is the cover all bases, do what you have to to make it work, one off attempts. It is prohibitively expensive and over engineered. After proof-of-concept, you know that it is possible and now have to determine how to repeat the result with what is basically a minimum viable product. What are the fewest components required? What is the most efficient form factor that will reproduce the results achieved by the proof-of-concept? Are there other options that solve existing issues in a better way? Taking away parts and adjusting the form factor of the thing you know works is inherently going to have failures. But after the iteration process you are left with something that does the job much better, and cheaper, than the initial attempts. Why can't a relatively small company reproduce the results accomplished by an entire country? Kind of answers itself doesn't it?

[@deanhall6045]

@@blackoak4978 Is that you Kamala? What ?

[@deanhall6045]

@@blackoak4978 NASA tell us they went to the moon, first attempt, no problem. What's yours? Don't you believe their lies either?

[@troybaxter]

​@@deanhall6045 First off, it wasn't the first attempt. They had many fly bys to test their systems (as currently demonstrated with Artemis). Secondly, the landing area was much larger and there were people on board. Right now, we are trying to land in a small area without human interference. It's not exactly easy, especially when things WILL inevitably break on launch or in the extremes of space.

[@deanhall6045]

@troybaxter Save it for some gullible fool who believes this trash. Inevitably, things break, unless your telling lies. You said it mate.

[@theshadowking3198]

Ik but the thing is nowadays our tech is so much better it’s “astronomical” 😂

[@RoboArc]

A: we should use a scout robot to scout the landing area / make the landing area B: We should just land it easy on a flat spot. Maybe have more than just a camera for depth perception lol.

[@Supercalifragilisticexpial-r2x]

There are already many areas that are flat enough that can be scouted from an orbiter.

[@Notllamalord]

We should build a comm network around the moon that bounces signals home

[@RoboArc]

@Supercalifragilisticexpial-r2x yeah , but I'd like a rover to set a pad for us. Also set up things for a mission.

[@StanWissink]

5:54 it knows where it is because it knows where it isn’t

[@MattWeser]

Great reference 😅

[@FormulaZR]

I was hoping to see that in the comments.

[@4ztt363]

Старая добрая шутка

[@Dustycircuit]

1:13 You know they are serious about their ESD safety when even the trash bin's are ESD safe.

[@MushookieMan]

You mean the drag chain on the chair?

[@BrunoDias1234]

BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon

[@ferocious_r]

it's not like they're *just* trying to repeat what they did in the 70s, they're going back in a much different way, learning new things and innovating more than is visible from the outside while doing so

[@Skyblade12]

They're innovating very little. They're mostly taking technologies that others developed and tacking them onto their over budget project so that they can request more money the next time Congress meets. NASA hasn't innovated anything in decades. They're just a corrupt, wasteful bureaucracy. SpaceX has made vastly more progress for far less cost in much less time.

[@Nooliy1]

Waisting money and faking another moon landing probably that is the part from the inside you won't see

[@christopherpardell4418]

NASA successfully landed 5 of 7 surveyor missions remotely on the moon between 1966 and 1968. Before a human piloted craft ever attempted to land. These mission answered question such as whether a lander would sink into the regolith, and the conditions astronauts would face on the surface, not to mention the auto approach programming they had worked out, a modified version of which would guide the Lunar Module and control its attitude all but the last few hundred feet.

[@tperk]

Happy someone pointed this out. Surveyor spacecraft managed to land on three legs, used a single rocket motor which it jettisoned before soft landing using some low-energy thrusters, managed to carry everything including fuel and a camera on a frame the size of a Harley. It even survived the lunar night. How these new unmanned robotic spacecraft cannot match that level of performance I can't understand.

[@rh906]

@@tperk People over-reliant on tech and little use of brains. The engineers and leadership of the 60s/70s were MENSA compared to their modern counterparts.

[@Souljourney22]

Do you know what happened to the ones that didn't? The real researchers know and it's very profound!

[@christopherpardell4418]

@ When you use terms like “real researchers” you reveal yourself to be a crank. Surveyor 2 had a mid-course correction failure and impacted the moon near Copernicus crater. And the surveyor 4 had a retrorocket explode while it was landing. Nothing profound. Just some lessons in how to harden spacecraft systems for deep space and wide temperature extremes. “Real researchers” are the folks who swallow hare brained fantasies they read about online.

[@HyperMAX9001]

@@tperk Thermo electric generators. They provided power and kept the internals warm. You cannot buy those things off the shelf. Not even if you have technology to make it to the Moon.

[@planetsec9]

Surveyor landers not even mentioned when that's closer to what NASA is doing with CLPS than Apollo manned landings tbh, those don't exactly have a great success rate either at the start

[@User-jr7vf]

Two reasons why US is struggling: 1 - sending money to Ukraine instead of funding NASA 2 - wants to send women to the moon instead of men; former are weaker and require more care to land safely

[@MattNolanCustom]

Or even the Lunokhod programme

[@ericfielding2540]

Yes, the seven NASA Surveyor missions to land on the Moon were pure robotic landers with technology from 60 years ago and designed by JPL. Five out of the seven landed successfully. The CLPS missions are from smaller organizations, and the cost is lower after adjusting for inflation, but NASA had landing technology six decades ago.

[@stardolphin2]

Given the problems with the previous 'Ranger' series (which weren't even *trying* to soft land, and only the last three were successful), engineers were somewhat surprised that Surveyor 1...*did* work, first time out.

[@yr2235]

Return? Never been there.

[@ZainalAbidin-d8q]

😂😂😂

[@lochlanmuir2291]

0:17 me in Spaceflight simulator

[@ClayVRgt]

Lol

[@floorpizza8074]

Why do they not use radar altimetry?

[@binglefish_6742]

Right! I’m sitting here going you guys remember radar don’t you. Way too much focus on cameras

[@stevegredell1123]

Probably cost. If you can do it with cameras you save the money/weight of the radar.

[@SuperCuriousFox]

Yeah, Apollo's LM featured multiple radar altimeters. Perhaps such assemblies are too heavy or power hungry?

[@richardbloemenkamp8532]

Radar is cheap enough. I think the problem is that it does not see sideways motion and cannot be used to find a good landing spot.

[@boeing_is_best5632]

@@richardbloemenkamp8532I agree with this, I think LIDAR would be the only reasonable replacement for cameras, but there are a whole host of issues with that. Cameras are cheap, light, and tiny. If you can make them work then they are a great solution in this case.

[@edmundsdemonds8309]

What changed? Congress won't give NASA an unlimited budget anymore :P

[@mho...]

wich is a #shameforhumanity !

[@MisterSpeaks]

Spacex is here

[@edmundsdemonds8309]

@@MisterSpeaks They aren't going to the moon without Nasa paying for or another space agency paying for it. All the money commercial to be made is in launching payloads into earth orbit & Elon's personal obsession seems to be Mars not the moon, assuming its not just marketing BS.

[@tor4472]

Which has largely recreated what nasa has already done. With a focus on rich people tourism

[@howdoyoudoit3499]

and no cold war...

[@davidryder3374]

Not sure why they can't just switch to some form of RADAR when dust occludes the cameras. It's a technology that's been mature since before the original moon landings and it would certainly work for this application with a lot less fuss.

[@Hobbes746]

IM-1 failed because they forgot to switch the altimeter on.

[@waichui2988]

Money.

[@Ryan-mq2mi]

It’s like farmer strength, against strength training. We may have all the advanced tools and supplements, but the farmer is hands on and over time has strengthened his tendons, muscle sinew, his grit and resolve.

[@GameGamesGaming-tc8ur]

"Laughs in Kubrick"

[@andrewj22]

So clickbait title and thumbnail then? The answer to, "what changed?" is, "nothing." What a waste of time.

[@AaryanLande-uf9ki]

I'm surprised that there is no mention of ISRO or Chandrayaan-3

[@FutureAITrend]

true

[@ShyamSingh-wb4ds]

They simply don't want to include anything that shows India's superiority over them. But they don't mind mentioning China that they consider as a threat for them. Such hypocrisy!

[@techietisdead]

Well, Artemis is more time consuming and both the private missions had less budget compared to Chandrayaan

[@AaryanLande-uf9ki]

@@techietisdead Bruh, what are you yapping about. First of all comparing Artemis and Chandrayaan is wrong. Artemis is more ambitious project than Chandrayaan, thus it will always be way more costly project. NASA's Artemis program is estimated to cost $93 billion between 2012 and 2025. Chandrayaan-1 cost = 52 million dollars. Chandrayaan-2 cost = 141 million dollars (highest estimation) Chandrayaan-3 cost = 75 million dollars. The Artemis program is over $6 billion over budget. The program is also 6 years behind schedule.

[@techietisdead]

@@AaryanLande-uf9ki Ye thats my point, you cant compare them hence Chandrayaan isnt mentioned

[@JustinPetersMin]

Apollo 17 in 1952?? Do what??

[@BrunoDias1234]

BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon

[@kvelez]

Interesting to see you here, I was just watching your last video. God bless.

[@theorangeoof926]

@@BrunoDias1234literal bot 🤖

[@rh906]

Low effort video.

[@adamkauffman9311]

Great video, and I will follow you on Nebula!

[@Tomoyo0827]

Chinese: planned 20-year long space program that wont be affected by budget issues, political climate, military overspending and dedication. NASA: has a new budget and mission objectives every 4 years. Who do you think is gonna win?

[@drfranks1158]

The only people to 'win' that game are the ones who get fat contracts, a golden goose that just keeps paying no matter how slow or delayed you are. I imagine there are some perks to the 'law makers' who pull the budget strings as well.

[@Vaeldarg]

(looks at the random explosions and collapsing everything shown by channels exposing what is going on in China behind the propaganda) I think it will be those that China relies on stealing tech from in the first place. Their level of corruption siphoning money and cutting corners makes the U.S look spot-less of it.

[@MrMaguuuuuuuuu]

China is a ticking time bomb

[@KingCreeper-1026]

To be fair, in the original Space Race the democracy that got new management every 4 years won. I’d argue general political motivation is the deciding factor rather than the political system used. In the original Space Race the US government saw space expansion as a demonstration of American exceptionalism and a race to beat the communists, while the Soviet government saw space expansion as more of a military issue than anything else (seriously, Vostok was designed to double as an uncrewed spy satellite and the N1 had to be pitched to the Soviet military as a missile capable of carrying the Tsar Bomba). In the current space race the US government sees space expansion as a jobs program and a way for contractors to get rich by infesting NASA with pork and incompetence, while the Chinese government sees space expansion as an integral part of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”.

[@VVayVVard]

Won't be affected by political climate... like something happening to Taiwan? Also, China does overspend on its military. It doesn't have nearly the margin of the US does to begin with, yet it's trying to ramp up everything to achieve regional dominance by 2027, hence why it's spending upwards of 1% of its GDP despite economic difficulties. And build quality issues are not uncommon with infrastructure projects. I wouldn't expect perfection from their space program.

[@alexandravisnick]

SLAM is also what robotic vacuums with camera based navigation (like the Roomba) use to navigate your house.

[@InXLsisDeo]

Well, that's not reassuring xD

[@TheRealPaul_Morphy]

NASA: We can't get to the moon anymore. Average US citizen: We lost the technology to land on the moon.

[@Krahazik]

Its not the tech we lost, its the attitude. When the attitude is "i just can't fail" you add redundancy for every critical systems if anything, (a dust particle) causes something like a criticle navigation camera to fail, there is another that can be used. You also don't rely on just a single type of sensor for your navigation. These companies are trying to build very cheap (relatively speaking) and so they lack redundancy and reliability. NASA back in the Apallo day's really could not afford to loos astronauts either, so they made sure. But they also had a lot more Government support as well.

[@zhengling2668]

@@Krahazik OK, then send a robot or rover

[@thedarkmoon2341]

It is not the technical or financial difficulties that have prevented a return to the Moon, it is that NASA has to be very careful not to perform any observations or experiments from the surface that would give away the fact that what we have been told so far does not match what theory predicts. Armstrong told us about "..truths protective layers".

[@nowgowiththeflow2724]

@@Krahazik no It's because all of the successful moon landing experience an instructions we had in the past they decided to throw it out the window an try to come up with somethin else. Like really all they really had to do was not completely change everything which they did an because of that they didn't have any reference or comparison to. Add to the matter the paper pushers an you end up with mistakes every where an also delays.

[@michaelplunkett8059]

We even sent a dune buggy up to expand their capabilities. Now, the car haters would mandate mass transit only.

[@billybeck8169]

So awesome that you actually go visit these places!

[@wpatrickw2012]

One way to assure that a lander doesn’t tip over is to make sure the pads for the landing legs are much further apart than the lander is tall.

[@AbelMcTalisker]

I`m glad I`m not the only person that seems to have noticed that!

[@TheSanpletext]

Or, you know, not hit rocks.

[@broomlord8557]

I love 11:40 sometimes the simple solutions are the best. No reason to overcomplicate something especially when you only need to tell that you landed once. Also unrelated but the inner child just loves how much different machines talk to each other just to make sure one lander succeeds. Its an amazing extensive network that just makes me smile since it's so cool

[@danolver913]

"NASA's budget is too big" 14:19 they're literally still having to use Windows XP 😂

[@MattyEngland]

$1 = 1 cent for space exploration, 99 cents in the back pockets of politicians and corporations.

[@thejusticeshow5729]

@@MattyEngland Not even. It's like the halfth of a penny.

[@TurntableTV]

I think they might use that for compatibility reasons. There's very specialized software that communicates on a specific type of connectors that don't have support on newer operating systems/hardware.

[@ezraclark7904]

​@@MattyEngland $1 spent on exploration isn't a $1 launched into space, it's paid to companies and people.

[@evertoaster]

Thats a chunky laptop. I imagine thats really old footage.

[@ericbstudios9807]

Wow those color tv clips of the first Apollo missons from the early 50's look great!

[@ApolloKid1961]

You mean early 70s. Apollo 12 had a color TV camera, however Alan Bean accidentally pointed it at the sun, so there was only little TV footage of that. Apollo 13 had a little accident on the way and only from Apollo 14 onwards there were good color TV footages.

[@ericbstudios9807]

@ApolloKid1961 Yes, I am aware you might not have noticed in the first 10 seconds of the video he mentions Apollo 17 being from 1952

[@dpcnreactions7062]

Cancelling Apollo 18 really was a major set back and then they sat on their laurels for over 50 years as the people who worked on the program aged out and died.

[@James-Alai]

It cracks me up how NASA is doing "Early exploratory missions" to the moon 51 years after humans already landed on it.

[@Souljourney22]

All for a reason. Doing a lil research gives you a clearer view.

[@weissfox5857]

Tbf i can concede that a moon base is a whole different ballgame than just touching the moon and leaving, if people are gonna live there they should know what they'll be dealing with

[@VanceItly]

Lol. The thing is usa never landed a man on moon in 1960s. But remember I'm a not a flat earther. And i am a science guy and i do believe and know every bit of NASA mars misios and rovers. That's true one sided missions. Nasa can reach and have visited all of these bodies through robots one sided missions multiple times but not in 1970s. But after 90s. Or 2000s. Mins this. Let alone manned return eurn mission of moon , is still impossible till tade 12 12 2024 .

[@jojobar5877]

@@VanceItly we landed men on the moon 6 times fact. You don’t know what you’re talking about and you write like you just crawled out of cave.

[@centaur1a]

One other reason Apollo 11 landed safety was that Neil saw bunch of boulders were the lander going to land. So he took over and landed safely. Will the unmanned probe too the same if incounter obstacles? Remember that the moon is not flat or smooth.

[@Dbdjabsjsiifiwb]

its supposed to do that yes

[@deanhall6045]

Are you being serious? NASA had 2 astronauts Marooned 250 miles away and had together someone else to rescue them. But a liar tells you he steered a lunar module on the moon and you believe it? Wow.

[@alexanderchristopher6237]

All the Chinese missions to the Moon are unmanned and they are successful.

[@deanhall6045]

@@alexanderchristopher6237 true. Unmanned because they know the truth. Cheers.

[@Scott_A]

They need to use AI to land - Armstrong Intelligence

[@pedrosantos4368]

AWESOME content

[@oliverfalco7060]

I prefer the approach they took on that mars rober... just put it inside a giant inflatable ball and let it roll till it lands, it's just more fun

[@LordReginaldMeowmont]

I don't think the moon has enough gravity to hold it down like Mars does.

[@cjay2]

@@LordReginaldMeowmont The moon has one sixth of the gravity of the Earth.

[@speedy01247]

That's honestly not a terrible idea, but IDK how well that would work in a vacuum.

[@oliverfalco7060]

@Everyonethathascommentedsofar That just makes it even more fun 🙃

[@BrunoDias1234]

BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon

[@filipe5722]

0:38 It's not IM-2, but IM-1. IM-2 is only going to be launched in January 2025.

[@JamesQuintero18]

Real Engineering has so many mistakes in this video, it's not good

[@FarrelClement]

​@JamesQuintero18 unfortunately it's not the first time, either. Given the breadth and speed at which they generate videos on topics, they're full of errors and will repeat common falsehoods. It's pop science, fine for entertainment, but people are going to base opinions on the errors and not realize it.

[@BrunoDias1234]

BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon

[@aboundedwall54]

@@FarrelClement Agreed. And he doesnt even try and hide his bias anymore. Anyone who will give him any information he makes out to be the golden child. Utter lack of critical evaluation or thinking.

[@dillangay7160]

I was going to say this but then saw this comment, don't want to be a parrot, glad to see I'm not crazy and did in fact hear that mistake correctly.

[@reno3]

It's not complicated - Bill the engineer

[@BrunoDias1234]

BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon

[@countcock5694]

- Bill Kerman

[@philkarn1761]

You have some Apollo communication details incorrect. The comm problem during the Apollo 11 landing was caused by plume deflectors (added very late) on the LM blocking the S-band antenna's view of Earth in some orientations. There was no S-band comm directly between the LM and CM, only VHF for voice and ranging. The relay request was for Collins in the CM to receive messages from earth over its S-band antenna (which was working fine) and relay them to the LM by VHF, which used separate antennas that didn't have to be pointed.

[@MorRobots]

Gen Z Silicon valley robot rocket boys will do anything to avoid using Radar... accurate to within millimeter and can even do SAR imaging on approach.

[@oadka]

yeah I was wondering the same, I believe that's what Chandrayaan 3 used for it's successful landing

[@crazeelazee7524]

I hope you have lots of hopes and dreams because they're the only thing that could power a radar set with the capabilities you describe on a lunar lander. I don't have the exact numbers and honestly I don't need to because even with the ballpark numbers, you'd need to increase the power source of the lander tenfold.

[@MorRobots]

​@@crazeelazee7524 You can get S, X, and K, band radars that use very little power but are more than capable of ranging and imaging (SAR) against the moon. Additionally you already have the RF equipment onboard acting as a link to the ground station. More over, radars for applications like this don't need a lot of power. You're not trying to track every single droplet of water in the air. Additionally a 1% duty cycle 1 watt RMS pulsed radar is effectively 100 watts of absolutely SCREAMING RF energy. lastly... They have the power to do image processing in real time, that fair bit of power. Solar cells used on probes like that pull down about 100 to 300 watts per square meter. Those landers are not exactly small, they have the power budget.

[@MattNolanCustom]

@@crazeelazee7524 The Apollo LEM had both a three-beam Doppler radar velocity sensor and a radar altimeter. Granted it took a Saturn 5 full stack to get it there.

[@crazeelazee7524]

@@MattNolanCustom A radar altimeter and a SAR radar are not the same. A radar altimeter is as simple as it gets and you would need ~10-20 watts for it. A SAR radar would need, at the lower end, a couple kilowatts of energy. Mind you, the Nova-C lander's (one of which tipped over) solar panels can output ~300 watts.

[@vishwakkanna9935]

Because, Doing a moon landing for first time is always harder, keep pushing USA 💪

[@2x2is22]

After watching this, it's a miracle everyone who went there came back

[@robertelmo7736]

Yes, a MIRACLE lol...

[@multioptioned]

How many people have died to get space exploration to this point of development? And what a waste of time and money when some morons still think humans on the moon never happened and the earth is flat! 😮

[@robertelmo7736]

@@multioptioned Some people think we didn't go 250k miles to the moon and land people on there, then return. But as for the flat earthers, those people are nutjobs lol!

[@rosewindows1]

No miracle, just good cinematography

[@jordanwardle11]

​@@multioptionednine during the us's original space program. None in space (us numbers only)

[@mdimascio]

Resolution down to 100 meters leaves a big ass rock invisible.

[@manickn6819]

Especially compared to the size of the lander. Much of the commentary on this video made no sense.

[@sferrin2]

The Surveyor program, in the 60s, landed 5 probes on the moon for a total of $462 million. The program included a total of 12 launches.

[@linecraftman3907]

With 7 of them being landing attempts.5 landed and 2 crashed. The cost is 4 billion today if you adjust for inflation.

[@stoyantodorov2133]

@@linecraftman3907I wouldn’t downplay the fact that NASA managed to soft land remotely 5/7 times without microchips and other modern tech and without any previous experience. It was honestly a tremendous achievement. The soviets were doing just airbag assisted “soft” landings at the time (although admittedly they did “soft” land first as well as many other firsts when it comes to lunar exploration). Yes, price was high when adjusted for inflation, but 60s space stuff was all around very expensive.

[@Souljourney22]

What happened to the ones that didn't make it?🤔🤯

[@v0ldy54]

@@linecraftman3907 true, but when accounting for inflation we should also account for the fact that now we should have 60+ years of knowledge, modern machining tools, material science, and CAD/simulation tools they could have only dreamed of in the '60s.

[@keegandecker4080]

The moon would make an interesting refueling station but the real money is in the asteroid belt out past mars. First dude to bring one of those babies home gets to retire for a hundred generations

[@EbonySaints]

If life has taught me anything, it's that wealth tends to disappear as quickly as it appears. I wouldn't be surprised if his grandkids or great-grandkids were broke, as implausible as it seems from bringing back the first "new" source of minerals ever.

[@Julianna.Domina]

I don't know about that. The thing with finding a whole bunch of a new resource is that it crashes the price of said resource

[@tomtexas4897]

Naw. First dude to do it crashes the metals market and causes a financial upset lie the world has never seen

[@d_all_in]

Almost all wealth dissipates within 3 generations

[@BrunoDias1234]

BBC: This machine is a typical of forced labour CNN: The overcapacity of Chinese moon landing DW: Chang'e 6, the dark side of the dark side of the moon

[@h.l.69]

You know there is a conspiracy of some kind about the topic when KZbin has to attach a Wikipedia article in the description...

[@keepkalm]

It's there in case you read comments you aren't supposed to.

[@VVayVVard]

@@keepkalm Hard-working people in Moscow are putting in long hours to write those comments, it's what has paid their bills since 2018. Critical thinking unfortunately requires capacity that most people don't have.

[@roflchopter11]

​@@VVayVVard"everyone I dont like is a Russian agent", are you a Hillary Clinton alt account, or do you work for the CIA?

[@BramBiesiekierski]

They had the same bullshit messages about the vax. Wish I had of questioned it instead of getting myopericarditis

[@Souljourney22]

Yes it is the most profound one when you know.💯❤

[@bugorgans]

IM FUCKING CRYING THE THUMBNAIL??? "why is the us struggling to return to the moon?" "ummm the thing fell over :("

[@alphabeets]

It’s absurd. They couldn’t put on three side thrusters to prevent tipping over.

[@gram40]

There's a story that the Apollo astronauts visited the facility building the Saturn V rockets. At a presentation, the head of engineering announced that they had developed a whole new engineering standard for Saturn V manufacturing, and that they could guarantee 99.9% of all components would operate as expected, way beyond the engineering standards of the day. An astronaut put up his hand, and asked how many components were on the rocket. 'Over a million' was the answer. The same astronaut then put his hand up again. 'So, what your saying is, 1,000 components are guaranteed to fail?'. 70 years later, NASA will never again risk astronauts until the chances of failure are infinitesimal, and this is one reason why its become prohibitively expensive

[@wpatrickw2012]

That is why just about every one of those parts had a backup and that backup had a backup.

[@gram40]

@@wpatrickw2012 Er no, you've not got the point. 1 fire that killed 3 astronauts, 1 explosion that almost killed 3 more do not suggest a robust system with strong backup systems. And that's not counting the faults that almost caused other catastrophic issues where basic luck got them through. Modern manned space travel is extraordinarily expensive and difficult because that level of risk would never be permitted now.

[@danielvogel5252]

​​​@@gram40except that the parts that created the emergencies in those cases were NOT part of the Saturn 5 rocket itself... and both were actually faults in the CSM, who if i remember correctly was made by Rockwell... The Saturn 5 never had a catastrophic failure. Oh, and saying that NASA will not risk astronauts lives without the risks of catastrophic failure being stupidly low is incredibly stupid seeing as how more people died during the course of the Shuttle program than in all of the previous space programs combined... heck, more astronauts died during this century than during our early spaceflight years...

[@SubLordHawk]

That's not how statistical chance works. If each individual component has a .1% chance of failure, and have ten components, then there is a 1E^-10 chance that all ten fail (.1^10). .1^1,000 is so small as to be essentially zero, and with multiple redundancy, is zero.

[@handle-h5m]

@@SubLordHawk 0.1% of 10 is far less than 1 and 0.1% of 1M is 1000. They didn't say "all" would fail, they said the percentage. If they "guarantee" a 99.9% rate of components operating as expected, then they seem to also guarantee an 0.1% failure rate. They said there were more than 1M components, so you could expect 1000 of those to not operate as expected given the guarantee.

[@xXxTeenSplayer]

13:00 That's not true; if the lander bounced and was in free fall, it would not look like it had landed on the surface according to the accelerometers. Just ask Mr. Einstein!

[@Darth_Insidious]

Exactly. When landed, the INS systems should measure a normal force from the ground that would not be measured during freefall.

[@SergLapin]

Because risk tolerance and utility goals are much higher now. It was proven that traviling and landing is possible.

[@gordilloedwin]

Not true, risk tolerance without humans inside is much lower. Weight is much lower too so again, not true. Why would they be trying to discover how to make an airplane flight instead of using what you already know, you base your new tech on already known tech.

[@Skyblade12]

@@gordilloedwin That's the problem. NASA doesn't create anything new, and doesn't innovate. They have zero actual scientific experience. They just have people who take things others have invented and slap them together, then try to make them work together. It costs more and more money, and since none of them actually understand what's going on, they can't deal with errors and incompatibilities. That's why their projects are all massively over budget, incredibly late, and obsoleted by SpaceX. Because SpaceX actually has people focused on the goal, instead of just focused on getting more money from Congress each year.

[@gordilloedwin]

@@Skyblade12 Not true, SpaceX is the scapegoat for NASA. Apollo 14 mission report clearly states traslunar trajectory injection took place right at hearth of the Van Allen belts, with persons inside and it poses no problem, yet here we are 60 years later and have yet to achieve what Apollo claims to have achieved with primitive computers (for today standards 0 processing power). SpaceX is nearly bankrupt due to the lack of achievements. They can do today what NASA has been doing for the past 20 years

[@gentlepr1616]

Crazy to see this is where we are, we need someone to this

[@Prifly70]

Welp, there’s no blank check due to geopolitics this time around, yet. I was lucky to be raised by an L.E.M. engineer, so my view is a bit skewed towards “ My dad did it, why can’t you guys?” point of view. But really it’s money and public willingness. And money.

[@SufficingPit]

It is insane how people completely can't fathom we stopped going because we stopped putting enough money into it, so now with far less money than before, decades loss of experienced engineers/scientists that actually worked on the problem meaning the new generation has to relearn all that, and the added challenge of completely new technologies makes it a bit difficult to kick things into gear again.

[@MattyEngland]

Never heard such copium. You do realise the Chinese have trillions of dollars in cash and gold reserves? If the Americans did it in the 1960's, then China would have been there 20 years ago. That fact that it was a hoax gets more and more obvious with every passing year.

[@sethrice9939]

I wish I could pick your dad’s brain, and learn all he did, and all he learned. The Apollo program as a whole has been my first and foremost fascination since I was a kid. The LEM especially, given all the changes made with each mission. Let alone the abilities showcased on 13, and the revolutionary concept of things like no chair, tiny windows, the docking reticle. Just to name a few.

[@zhengling2668]

Money is printed or punched in

[@Skyblade12]

@@SufficingPit They get twenty five billion per year. Their projects are billions over budget, and years behind. They don't get results because they are just a worthless bureaucracy that only cares about getting more money from Congress each budgetary checkpoint. SpaceX has created far more innovation in the past five years than NASA has in the past thirty, and for a tenth of the cost. All NASA does it take things other people have designed and built, slap them on a rocket, and demand more money for more stuff.

[@petermcgill1315]

When you’re landing on the moon and with rocks 20-30m that could bring you undone; 100m resolution doesn’t sound that impressive. Put some people in the cockpit.

[@InXLsisDeo]

you can go first

[@niyanlan8928]

1969-the Moonlander lands beautifully on the moon. 2024-it fell over!. Those olden day folks weren’t so dumb after all.

[@baaldiablo8459]

plus they didn't even cancel their horizontal velocity before trying to land... they did it all in one maneuver! truly unbelievable...

[@prasakmanitou4925]

And Lunokhod 1, 1970 an 11-month remote control mission.

[@niyanlan8928]

@@prasakmanitou4925 very true and an excellent reference sir!

[@shady_ba]

Yeah man, those Nazi scientists

[@perryallen7663]

And it was accomplished with virtually zero diversity! Just saying. The 800 pound gorilla in the room: back pre 1970 NASA hired the best. Period. And, NASA tapped Von Braun and dozens of former Nazi scientists in the late 50’s. They were the fathers of the Apollo program.

[@nickdandel5314]

An excellent documentary to watch that is somehow hidden and doesn't come up when you are looking at the subject 'American Moon'

[@ThomasKundera]

It's crap. Agree?

[@khulhucthulhu9952]

Wait nebula just hiked its price from the previous 15 per year to 36 per year!?

[@raven4k998]

so no redundancy on the cameras sad so sad even you and I have redundancy with a back up eye incase one fails🤣🤣

[@KosmonautKong]

More than that. They're probably worried about that State Department money drying up lol.

[@raven4k998]

@@KosmonautKong yeah I mean if Nasa could do it with lesser tech and they can't it shows how stupid they are to not be even trying to make it work they have the tech to automate the ships if communication is an issue program the ship to require the signal by rotating and repositioning the antenna to get better gain if they could do it in the 1960s moon mission why can't they do it now?

[@theorixlux]

Would be cool to see china and us take a break from the bickering and try to cooperate on this initiative.

[@robymaru03]

It's US congress that stay on the way, and if you didn't know despite all the sanctions on Russia most equiment going to outer, need to be tested in Russia.

[@captainwheelbarrow649]

Yeah same with the Space Station. China are just gonna copy US anyway, may as well work with them

[@postahundredcommentsbutonl4408]

问题是西方殖民者是不可能放弃他的殖民主义的。

[@InXLsisDeo]

The US has systematically been blocking all cooperations with China since 10 years ago, it's a policy. They blocked China from going to the ISS, so China built their own. Also, India has a successful mission on the Moon.

[@cakeisalie]

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

I wonder how much convincing it would take for you to accept that you have been fooled, then.

[@ThomasReed-c1w]

If you’ve never been somewhere, how can you return to it?

[@Hobbes746]

The USA has done 11 successful landings on the moon already. That’s why it’s called a return.

[@ThomasReed-c1w]

@Hobbes746 You’re having a giraffe.

[@Hobbes746]

@@ThomasReed-c1w No, being serious. We have loads of evidence that prove the Surveyor and Apollo landings are real, and no evidence at all that any of those landings were faked. So why would I believe they were faked?

[@ApolloKid1961]

There were 5 successful landings of the Surveyor. There were 9 manned flights to the moon. They landed there 6 times and 12 people have walked on the moon. They have collected over 380 kilos of moon rocks that have been studied by scientists worldwide. These are irrefutable scientific facts. Your gut feelings don't count.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Didn't the Soviets land unmanned craft on the moon in the 1970's? They also landed several craft on Venus.

[@ThomasKundera]

Right.

[@iamgroot4080]

It's really hard to believe them, when You're getting doubts like that about the history.... Something smells

[@ThomasKundera]

@@iamgroot4080 : I smell ignorance, right

[@tabletbrothers3477]

Maybe getting something to enter Venus' atmosphere, but Venus will fry anything manmade within a minute.

[@ThomasKundera]

@@tabletbrothers3477 / USSR Verena probes landed and took pictures. But yes, that's hard.

[@nadavegan]

This video doesn't address "why" at all. In the 1960's we were able to figure it out in a few years with nearly zero tech. 55 YEARS LATER "oooh it's so difficult". Either: a. We never went in the first place b. We lost the technical ability to go and squandered the subsequent advances that should have made this so much easier c. "Moon landing" is a grift nowadays for funding There is no way we delivered a human payload 55 years ago yet now struggle to land a craft that is loaded with laser and digital technology that was only fiction when the human payload was delivered.

[@THEfonz-s5u]

Yeah the whole autonomous cars crashing thing today proves to me that there is no way that Bertha Benz drove a car 100km in 1888. No way would cars still crash if they’ve been around that long. And they are way, way, way, way cheaper to develop and drive than going to the freaking moon.

[@nadavegan]

@@THEfonz-s5u those aren't even similar situations technically. In fact you reinforce my point: every single thing about automobiles is cheaper, safer, easier, more routine, more widespread, better tech, everything. To correct your attempt at simile, it would be this: Bertha drove in 1888, and since then we have driven a couple dozen more times but still can't figure out how to parallel park. Or how about: we did a heart transplant in 1967, and since then we have done a dozen more, but we do them rarely because the cost has exploded and we can't get the immunosuppressive drugs to work reliably. Find me another industry or activity ANYWHERE that has regressed this much in 55 years. No matter the cause, it's shameful.

[@THEfonz-s5u]

@ cars are commercial. And supposedly have made 100s of billions of journeys. And after over a 100 years are STILL crashing. You reinforce my point. Moon travel is in infancy. Moon travel has not been an ‘industry’ (it was and is largely supported by governments) in the commercial sense until very recently where there are murmurs. Again, it’s in infancy. Apollo was an outlier even as a feat, nevermind an ‘industry’. A bag of rocks and dust. An industry? It was not sellable and not scalable. It was a dead end at that time. That you would even begin to make comparisons is just stupid . A mad unrepeatable moment of massive spending and energy for what? To prove they did it. Name another activity? First trip to the bottom of the ocean (Challenger Deep) was 1960. No one went back there for 52 years. By 2019 more people had visited and walked on the moon than had visited Challenger Deep. In 2024 they couldn’t even get down to the Titanic without imploding. Another? Flying passengers across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound. They did it in a 1960s jet and now they destroyed it. Like they destroyed Saturn V. Both are obsolete. So now start rolling your BS….

[@THEfonz-s5u]

@@nadavegan there is no WAY we delivered a human payload in 1888 when we have autonomous cars today that still crash. No matter the cause, it’s shameful.

[@nadavegan]

@@THEfonz-s5u you are either too dense or too fanboi to have a clue. 55 years is not INFANCY. In tech it is 20 generations.

[@Andreas-gh6is]

Apollo was too early. They compensated for the lack of technology with massive amounts of money. And having spent that money, the nation grew tired.

[@multioptioned]

And what did going to the moon achieve? Very expensive bragging rights? Stop wasting money. Save the earth instead.

[@casualcadaver]

I don't think it was too early. If WW2 hadnt happened I think Wernher von Braun would have already had landed equipment on the moon in the early 1950s maybe even 1949.

[@sparqqling]

@@casualcadaver he was indeed aiming for the moon, he just kept hitting London!

[@crazyforcoffee5950]

They were also fighting a war in Vietnam

[@sparqqling]

@@crazyforcoffee5950 The rich still paid taxes, so they could afford!

[@acesin-et7pp]

In an interview, Donald Pettit -a NASA astronaut- mentioned that he'd go the moon, but they no longer have the technology to do that. All the technology from the Apollo mission has been destroyed, and it is a painful process to build it back again.

[@Hobbes746]

He gave that interview in 2010, when the USA did not have a spacecraft in production that could go to the moon. That’s what he was referring to. We still have tons of knowledge from Apollo, but that’s insufficient. You have to actually build a rocket large enough to put a spacecraft on the moon, and that is a project that costs tens of billions of dollars.

[@CoolCalmCoop]

I hope we can go to the moon commercially in my lifetime.

[@danielbrowniel]

Best case scenario is like 1 million. I would volunteer to work for free. 6 month mission.. It will be like Antartica, they will want the kind of people that know how to do a lot of different stuff.

[@ZoonCrypticon]

What do you want up there ? Kick dust ?

[@rador3573]

Incoming in the 2030s

[@danielbrowniel]

​@@ZoonCrypticon The average person has no use for being on the moon. Militarily though, the moon is a sort of "high ground". Once you see this you start to understand that it isn't a coincidence the only new rocket engine (the SRB) used with SLS is capable of being used as an ICBM on it's own. A lot of space exploration is just a way to make tools used for war.

[@cjay2]

Funny, but the older I get, and I'm old now, the less I believe that the US went to the moon, especially given how they are behaving now. Just saying.

[@crazypro715]

We just need to use 4 kb of RAM again

[@chronosschiron]

we're sorry no maericans can count to 4 are left

[@keichholtz]

We’re struggling because the first time we actually landed on a sound stage

[@Hobbes746]

Nope. We sent to the moon.

[@THEfonz-s5u]

No sunlight on a sound stage.

[@Fharenheit]

My god, this will feed the "The Moon landing was fake".... FFS NASA. you had 1 Job

[@Hobbes746]

The job was Intuitive Machines’, not NASA’s.

[@aliwalil4160]

What do you mean "return"?

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

return /rɪˈtəːn/ noun 1. an act of coming or going back to a place or activity.

[@ms3862]

NASA budget in 1969: 10% of GDP

[@THEfonz-s5u]

Where are you getting your data? I see (from the Historical NASA Budget Data - The Planetary Society) : ($millions) 1969 = $4,370 which was. 2.31% of US spending 2024 = $27,185 which was 0.36% of US spending

[@AgnosticThinker]

​@@THEfonz-s5u I think he was joking

[@ThomasKundera]

@@AgnosticThinker : NASA budget went up to 4% of Federal Budget during Apollo ear (is now less than 5%).

[@ElTelBaby]

Quote Title "Why The US is Struggling to Return to the Moon" ROFL... R U having a Giraffe Come on now... @ 0:05 Pause;... What ID10T would put a set of Drummers Symbols on the base of those spindle legs & hope they would work;... "Ho they will B just fine..." @ 0:50 Quote "NASA needs to relearn how to land on the moon, and more importantly, develop the technologies needed to do it reliably" Emphasis on "relearn";... they never landed in the 1st place... Buzz Aldrin when asked;... couldn't place his hand on the Holy Bible stating that he did;... he even stated to a young girl when asked;... replying "We Didn't"... All this while being filmed... The evidence is out there... Do your own due diligence...

[@Hobbes746]

You are wrong. Aldrin never claimed he did not go to the moon. He refused to swear on a Bible because the person demanding he swear on a Bible was a known conman and charlatan. The Bible commands us not to swear on anything.

[@thespacedinos4037]

your quoting that “couldn’t place his hand on the holy bible” thing from a video where a moon landing conspirator gets his shit rocked by buzz aldrin himself not a very good argument

[@Sides1160]

In the 60’s people knew and accepted the risk of space travel. They did to minimize those risks. They had more of a can do attitude. When Apollo 13 happened, it wasn’t a computer that figured out how to bring home those brave souls, it was another brilliant mind. Today we rely far too much on computers. If a computer can’t solve the problem, we can’t do it. That is why we fail. Apollo didn’t fail because nobody told them that they couldn’t.

[@Hobbes746]

IM-1 failed because a human forgot to switch the altimeter out of safe mode.

[@paxzin8501]

I thought the reason that we couldn't go back to the moon, was because Stanley Kubrick died.

[@Hobbes746]

Kubrick had nothing to do with the Apollo landings. Actual engineers did.

[@ApolloKid1961]

Douglas Trumbull was the visual effects man for 2001 and so he would have been the visual effects man for the eventual fake landings. However, he has vehemently denied that he or Kubrick were ever involved in making any fake moon landing film ever.

[@samuxan]

I don't get why people talk about general and strong AI when this proves we haven't mastered a narrow AI like the algorithm to land safely there

[@samuelschonenberger]

Because they are completely different things the AI people are talking about are Large Language Models usually that have been trained on a lot of data. The AI needed here is completely different subdomain of Machine Learning called Reimforcement Learning (it's analogous to feedback control) that is making massive strides but isn't there yet + the data the one needs to train a Machine Learning model does not exist or not enough of it exists to get the performance yet probably.

[@Etrehumain123]

Because those thousands of self driven cars out there share their experiences onto one server, one hard drive, therefore when you get in a car, the AI has a combined let's say 1 million hours of driving experience.

[@RealMTBAddict]

Mastered*

[@1pcfred]

Up away from the protective shield of Earth's magnetosphere sensitive electronics are unreliable. So we have to use special radiation hardened chips that are considerably weaker computationally than the state of the art.

[@gasgaslex_photos]

There is no way i would want to land on the Moon in a SpaceX pencil, vertically on its end. Give me a low squat, wide lunar lander thanks

[@FrankyPi]

Blue Origin's Blue Moon is more similar to LM.

[@sundarbe]

Like it or not that pencil is getting all the government budget. It is nothing but a bottomless money pit.

[@FrankyPi]

@@sundarbe They're not getting "all of the government budget", there are more contractors for landers than just SpaceX.

[@InXLsisDeo]

@@FrankyPi They soon will, though, as Elon Musk will be in charge in a few weeks. Talk about conflict of interests.

[@FrankyPi]

@@InXLsisDeo He only has some influence, but cannot be in charge, he would have to leave his companies to get an actual government position, which he isn't doing, DOGE isn't an official government department, GAO also already exists which makes it useless anyway.

[@markwagstaff4464]

I am an engineer retired after 45 years. I like you channel. I found it sitting getting cancer treatment. Thanks

[@ApolloKid1961]

I hope you stay strong.

[@brentwaits954]

To all the people that don't think we went to the moon.. You can see the tracks that were left from every mission that landed. Enjoy!

[@chintham2861]

Stanley Kubrick was the head of the moon landing.

[@DemonDrummer]

Incorrect.

[@Hobbes746]

Kubrick was working on 2001: A space odyssey. His best efforts at faking a moon landing can be seen in that film, and it’s immediately obvious that his state-of-the-art special effects are not good enough to fool anyone: it’s obvious those scenes were filmed on Earth. The Apollo videos, on the other hand, show the astronauts in perfect 1/6 g gravity on the moon. Kubrick couldn’t do this: they were on the moon for real.

[@chintham2861]

@@Hobbes746 Why are workers smoothing the sand in the studio for the Apollo moon lander? To remove foot prints prior to "moon landing? Never knew they sent workers with brooms to the moon! Historical film of American moon landing images kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKm0mpmHf9yYZ7M

[@chintham2861]

@@Hobbes746 Why are workers smoothing the sand in the studio for the Apollo moon lander? To remove foot prints prior to "moon landing"? Never knew they sent workers with brooms to the moon! Historical film of American moon landing images kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKm0mpmHf9yYZ7M I posted this response earlier and it was erased showing the US determination to maintain the "moon landing" lie.

[@lantanonlesiba6556]

how do you return to a place that you have never been to??..remember "One small lie for a man...One Giant Laugh for mankind"

[@ForageGardener]

How do you go to a place that doesn't exist? Lmao😂

[@Hobbes746]

The Apolllo missions are real, as proven by a ton of evidence. The only people lying about Apollo are the ones who claim the Apollo missions were faked. Don’t be an idiot.

[@jurajsintaj6644]

​@@ForageGardener Dont tell me youre getting your info from those government drones they call pidgeons

[@erockbrox8484]

The reason we haven't gone back is because its hella hard to go there. You need a crap ton of money as well. The government has to fund NASA 100% to make the mission possible.

[@nawarajkarki4]

They are struggling now because they have never been there before.

[@Hobbes746]

The evidence is clear: the US has landed on the moon 14 times.

[@ChrisStavros]

They're struggling because in 1969 they cared about reaching the Moon. Today they care about making sure there's an Asian, a groid, and at least more than 50% women on board.

[@MarkusJArbab]

We never went. It was easier to lie back then.

[@Hobbes746]

We did go, as proven by a mountain of evidence.

[@nmtl5721]

How can you return to something you've never been to?

[@Hobbes746]

Intuitive Machines has not been to the moon before. Other companies and institutions in the US and elsewhere have.

[@ApolloKid1961]

Nobody cares about your gut feelings. Come up with scientifically proven evidence why no one ever landed on the moon or shut up.