Something Weird Is Happening On The Moon..

Something Weird Is Happening On The Moon..
Last Video: NASA Reveals Something Weird Is Happening To The Sun!
• NASA Reveals Something...
►The Space Race Merch Store Is Live! Shop our first release while quantities last: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: [e-mail]
#Spacex #Space #Mars

[@ronhutcherson9845]

If you’ve ever played Atari’s Lunar Lander video game you’ll have no doubt about how hard it is to land with nothing but thrusters and limited fuel.

[@libradragon]

Spot on reference! Only IF successful, lol. That was a fun challenge, liked that game.

[@robymaru03]

But apparently human did it 6 times in a row 50 years ago, the more we investigate the moon the more propestorous this moon landing tales get, I want to believe but the evidence is not helping at all.

[@ronhutcherson9845]

@@robymaru03 The first couple of levels are pretty easy, actually, but pretty soon you’re supposed to make pinpoint landings on cliff ledges with very little fuel. I never had enough money to get good at it but plenty of kids did.

[@Levitiy]

@@robymaru03 Yes, because it wasn't remote control. The Lunar Modules had actual pilots which increases landing success by orders of magnitude.

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

@@robymaru03 That's because the astronauts were handpicked combat or test pilots used to making split second decsions and staying calm under the most intense pressure who were then trained to the limits of human mental and physical fitness and intensively practiced this manouvre while still on Earth. Look up Lunar Landing Test Vehicle. I detect the unwashed stink of a moon landing hoaxer. Get over yourselves. It happened. The whole hoax idea was created by a delusional con artist named Bill Kaysing who had no scientific training and was a copy editor at Rocketdyne, wilfully misinterpreting some questions over the design of the F1 engine and building it up into a massive conspiracy to sell a book.

[@Xhydraulics]

India's first landing attempt was a failure(chandrayan 2).But India's 2nd lunar lander landed on moon southpole recently and deployed a rover (chandrayan 3).It was not designed to survive the freezy lunar night due to tight budget. Anyway it just completed its 14 day mission.

[@baddyforall2568]

No man. First one was sent to orbit moon. Second one was sent to soft land but failed. 3rd one was successull

[@Xhydraulics]

@@baddyforall2568 just read my comment carefully. I said first landing attempt. Not first mission

[@4Everlast]

They promised hotels on the moon in 1969. = Every times, I mean EVERY time they promise they're going back, 15 wars "break out" and the space money is put into the war machine, for another election, another BS artist, and then suddenly we realize the US started the wars, as if there's a reason they can't/won't go to the moon. Ain't that interesting. Those India and China missions got ZERO main strem media space, I guess they can't fake it as well as the US did, and even they didn't do a great job mind you. You remember the blue screens? The zip lines in the ISS? The bubbles? I do.

[@user-hn6eb3ng5z]

Liar

[@Xhydraulics]

@@user-hn6eb3ng5z who?

[@stevenmitchell6347]

If these gravity anomalies are known and mapped, it should be possible to account for them and make appropriate adjustments.

[@christianmgbike6188]

On point bro

[@malachiteofmethuselah9713]

Yes, but the average smart human does not even get past big "G," as a constant. Constants are not variables.

[@mynde-fuchefoundation2254]

You'd think.

[@mynde-fuchefoundation2254]

​@@malachiteofmethuselah9713but variables are a constant.

[@malachiteofmethuselah9713]

@@mynde-fuchefoundation2254 Variables "Can," be a constant. If you wanna knit pick something. o.0

[@user-ed1mj5zk6f]

The Indian mission to the South Pole did exactly what proposed to do" One moon day", 14 days on Earth. They did the science they proposed and It was an excellent achievement, congratulations are, in order hear; felicitations! .

[@richardnew1215]

I remember being taught in school that the uneven gravity in lunar orbit was from mass concentrations under the lunar surface--the remainders of cometary/meteorite bodies after the impact.

[@oriraykai3610]

A wild guess by know nothing doofuses.

[@ts-900]

@@oriraykai3610 You are sooo correct -- the moon is obviously filled with marshmallow crème.

[@omegaotaku1342]

@@ts-900 we've gone from thinking the moon is made of cheese to thinking it's made of marshmallow crème, in a day and age where some people still think the earth is flat

[@michaelg.294]

@@omegaotaku1342 I've always wanted to ask a flat-earther if they thought the moon was also flat. Pretty sure I already know what they'd say.

[@ts-900]

@@omegaotaku1342 GASP! You mean it's not flat? Well, as long as it's not a dodecahedron.

[@pruthuchauhan2159]

FYI the Chandrayaan-3 mission was a succes. The lander Vikram touched down near the Lunar south pole and a Rover named "Pragyan" completed it's 14 Day mission.

[@user-ud6ui7zt3r]

I went to hit the Like Button but my finger smashed into it with such velocity that it broke up before any useful data could be transmitted. 🌖💥

[@user-xh9pt8zu2l]

Love the content in general but would prefer you didn't repeat errors about the first manned lunar landing. The navigation system was not wrong. The module was heading for the rather generous planned landing target. The human pilot recognised the planned landing area was a boulder field. Armstrong did not take manual control at any stage, He could not. He changed the landing place by redirecting the flight computer... the first real "fly by wire" system. There were no "Luke Skywalker" moments just solid engineering and a well trained crew using it.

[@Warren-ec8oo]

LMFAO

[@systemicsystems703]

It was fake!

[@jbfiveash636]

Thanks

[@aliloucreations1817]

Totally agree ! Well said

[@anonymike8280]

You're no fun.

[@ZMacZ]

6:30 Despite a 2.5 second delay, you can extrapolate for that time, and still be fairly accurate when steering remotely. You'd need a piloting ace though, that has a feel for the extrapolation. (That also means virtual training with the same equipment before the actual landing.) Or, you can ask a gamer that has always struggled with lag.

[@strikerorwell9232]

A friend of mine played a multi-player game on the toughest level and was contacted by the US Navy?

[@ZMacZ]

@@strikerorwell9232 Can happen, if the game's stats are being recorded, and watched by naval Intelligence, while also regarding the game as a poll for expected results on a set of problems involving quick and/or rather exceedingly bright decision making skills. Basically, I'd make a game to recruit remote drone operators, which could then have a base of thousands of potentials. It's not a physical thing, it's a mental and hand/eye coordination thing, for which games are excellent proving grounds, barring cheating systems. (Cheats would be found out by not being able to produce the same results under overwatch.)

[@WDGaster-sh3md]

This is one of the best video you made,really clear something out.Keep up and the public can see more about real space exploration.❤

[@davidroberts5602]

Thanks for the updates that was very helpful david 👌❤️🇬🇧👍

[@st.charlesstreet9876]

Love this information on the landers ❤ Thank You!

[@tekmepikcha6830]

The moon not having even gravity around its perimeter, is the most awesome novel piece of information about anything space exploration, that I've learned this year! 🤣👏👏

[@robymaru03]

And Apollo mission going 6 times in the moon didn't even notice that somehow.

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

@@robymaru03 Please give evidence of that assertion.

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@@robymaru03 the Apollo missions didn’t have gravimetric sensors as far as I know. These days every modern military submarine has multiple for gravity mapping. It’s almost like technology improves over time or something…

[@bencoss7003]

It might be so hard to land on moon because it might be angry, you know it does have a dark side

[@human_isomer]

Definitely! That's where all the pink Floyds live, and they can get a little aggressive every now and then.

[@infernoplexx9562]

Very informative video , good job

[@robertf3479]

Just want to note here that the RANGER missions launched by NASA were all intended to be impactors, none were to soft land.

[@robertboeckmann1111]

Thank you for this episode. Despite understanding that there is uneven gravity on the moon, I had not realized it was strong enough to affect navigation. It occurs to me that both automated and pilot controlled landing attempts would benefit from sensitive real time gravity sensors (not sure if this is currently possible at the scale to fit in a landing craft!

[@Patrik6920]

...depends of the craft... modern sensors can be the size of 2 car batteries ..can probably be shrunk down...but since thers no real market or incentive doing so faast, the equippment are usually one of a kind custom builds... closest i belive u come to off the shelf sensors are a 19 inch rack module + external tube of .5 meters or so with a 5-6 inch diameter... ...but size isent really the issue anyway, its the weight... thers a high cost launch things into space... depending of launch rocket the cost varies alot bigger rocket - less cost/kg ... but then the rocket itself cost massive ...the proble is as said the weight not the size... cost in dollars from a small rocket costing 17k/launch the cost per kg is 41k/kg (unable launch more than small cube sattelites low orbit) to something costing 1 800 000 (almost 2 million dollar/launch) able to carry a space wehichle into space... 65k/kg payload but can carry tonnes... (also takes years to build and cant be reused) or the more resonable Quinguan (China) at 5 million dollars/launch 17.5k/kg cost ...for shooting up instument into orbit either in peaces(modules) or parts of and assemble in space smaller rochets r a viable alternative... but it would req assemble them in space

[@lsmith6378]

India and Pakistan are nuclear countries and flying in space so why are they advertising for more money on TV.

[@andymouse]

I don't believe the moon can change gravity in a short period of time and to any extent that would bother any modern sensors today. We have magnetometers and accelerometers in kids toy drones that demonstrate the tech ! and that's the tech we know about !

[@Patrik6920]

@@andymouse ...yes...ther are actually alot of accelerometers and magntometers that about the size of an integrated circuit... ..but when it comes to measuring precise gravity there isent rly many options... not yet... there are chip sized once but those r to inprecise atm...

[@andymouse]

My point is the gulf between a kids toy and what NASA have on hand is enormous and I'm sure the precision is too@@Patrik6920

[@mohammedrizwan9447]

India's Chandrayan 3 landed successfully on South pole of Lunar and manly become 1st Ever country to DO so... 🇮🇳 🇮🇳 🇮🇳

[@user-gt3km8jk3z]

Ain't nobody got 2 the moon

[@hcox1111]

I seen the cartoon, real impressive .

[@mohammedrizwan9447]

Like the US cartoon does, yes...🤔🤪

[@hcox1111]

US had slightly better cartoon but cartoon none the less.@@mohammedrizwan9447

[@NicholasNerios]

Spectacular, always good work

[@bakerfx4968]

Your videos just keep getting better and better! Keep up the good work my dude!

[@ghost307]

"Something weird is happening on the moon" sounds like the whole premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[@SegoMan]

I don't think so Dave.........

[@chammockutube]

Wouldn’t the sky-crane “portion” of a lunar landing be very similar to its use on Mars or perhaps easier as I think the moon’s gravity is about 44%-ish of Mars gravity?

[@batmantherooster]

Very good video thanks 🙏 for your long hour’s putting this video together!!!❤❤❤❤❤

[@ccc_the_painful_truth]

Messing up in 2023, yet no problem in 1969?

[@johnalcala]

Eggs actly!

[@daryl9799]

Exactly horseshit he magically landed on his own intuition with seconds worth of fuel what a story lol

[@martinnewtonholmes]

What`s your point ?

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@@daryl9799 no one says that

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

So? You say it was “no problem” because you have no idea what you’re talking about. There are photos of the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit and the surface.

[@mmwaashumslowww7167]

There is also a gravitational anomaly at the earth's South Pole where they know about a strange mass below Antarctica. Rather odd, don't you think?

[@DesertSessions93]

I wonder if other planets have such anomaly...

[@dr.jamesolack8504]

@@DesertSessions93 Study Uranus closely…..you’ll find it chock-full of anomalies.

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

Yea, it’s called “Antarctica”.

[@ronnyb5890]

there's also the fact that these new landings are being done on the other side of the moon, thus out of the LOS (line of sight) where the earth cant give direct instructions anymore, the only way a landing could be more feasable, is to give command for landing the craft over to AI, that way it can automatically changes trajectory and velocity accordingly

[@bigboss-tl2xr]

Or put up a cubesat to be a relay.

[@irasmith3832]

Wonderful video, very interesting and clear. Thank you so much. I had been wondering about this topic. Uneven gravity and no atmosphere whatsoever. Makes sense! 👋

[@AZA6819]

Good content. So nice to hear stuff that doesn't sound like everyone's else. 🎉

[@bertilandersson6606]

Amazing video, you gained a subscriber! Just wondering, isnt electromagnetic storms an issue as well? Maybe it makes sense to land on the moon when the moon is at certain position relative to the sun and earth in order to midgate gravitational and electromagnetic effects.

[@BurgertAPotgieter]

Apparently there is no Magnetic field present on the moon and then again, nothing has been proven what the moon exists of. NASA the biggest liars in the Universe just touching the levels of the Democrats.

[@timothystockman7533]

This IS rocket science! As I understand it, Armstrong took PARTIAL control during the landing. The only time the descent engine was fired under full manual control was a course correction burn during Apollo 13.

[@britz3864]

Thank you for such a concise and comprehensive explanation. It makes it so much easier to understand and retain information. Thumbs up and subscribe.

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

This isn’t very good information, I’d recommend someone better. Everyday astronaut has good info

[@connecticutaggie]

Spacecraft are (mostly) open space surrounded by a thin shell. They are much lighter than rock so it is not a buried spacecraft. It seems it would more likely be a metallic meteor.

[@gantzthegreat8998]

it was a rock people ship, all rock

[@connecticutaggie]

@@gantzthegreat8998 LOL, even if they were rock people, they would need a way to move around and moving through solids is really not practical so the interior would need to be mostly gas or liquid which would also be less dense than rock. I guess rather than rock, they could be heavy metal, maybe that could work. 😄

[@gantzthegreat8998]

or they were liquid meal terminators from the future@@connecticutaggie

[@rustusandroid]

Russia was first object in space, first man in space, first spacewalk, first spacestation, first lunar lander, first Venus lander, first Mars lander... plus many more. Trust me, they don't suck at space.

[@curtisquick1582]

Political stunts mostly. NASA did much better planned exploration programs. Most of the Russian firsts were nearly tragedies. They may have been slower, but NASA made it work for real.

[@rustusandroid]

@@curtisquick1582 Wow, moronic.

[@MrMarkar1959]

back in late 1990's An Astral Traveler materialized in a brilliant white orb! like a TV without the cabinet!! hopefully it happens again,,i'll ask for proof next time.

[@av_kovko]

The cause of the crash of the Luna 25 station became known. Luna 25 has been crashed due mulfiction acceleration mensure unit integrated at Angle Velocity of Mensure Unit (Block Izmereniya uglovoy skorosri) (BIUS-L), zero readings were received in the on-board computer. The computer, without knowing the data, controlled the braking engines up to a time cut-off of 127 seconds, and not according to the speed data. As a result, the spacecraft came out of the perelune 18 km, and deorbited. Spacecraft impacted on Moon surface after 43 minutes after deboost.

[@Anuchan]

The LRO has been orbiting since 2009 at a height of 50 km. It calculated an orbit that took the gravity anomalies into effect.

[@Joseph_Omega]

This really explains it! Makes _PERFECT_ sense why the *Moon,* though MUCH closer and accessible than *Mars,* has had so many failures. Maybe modern AI can finally now stand in for real-time human intelligence.

[@SousukeAizen421]

Mars is still harder to reach than the moon, the amount of fuel, logistic, and calculation is like many times greater than the moon landing , US doesnt not even try to land on the moon anymore seeing that there's no new groundbreaking discovery to befound in there, they have 2 actice rovers and a small helicopter on there already, same with China

[@ts-900]

My theory is that we are using standard and metric measurements, but the moon uses lunar units.🌙🧀

[@curtisquick1582]

None of the Ranger lunar probes were intended to soft-land on the Moon. They were only meant to fly to the Moon taking ever better images before impact. The Surveyor probes were intended to be soft landers and almost all were successful years before Apollo 11. It may be true that the Russians soft-landed on the Moon first, but they had fewer probes that collected much less science. The Ranger and Surveyor programs succeeded in gathering a lot of critical science that made the Apollo missions so much more successful. The Russians had no such well-planned scientific programs. They were one-off political stunts. This is why Russian probes still crash to this day. They are more political stunts to get attention than they are well-planned science.

[@LordoftheCats]

Good info in an understandable format. Thanks for that.

[@kend6693]

Learning by failing? Well everyone except Dr. Evil

[@BlueNETGaming]

So back in the days we landed a moon lander with less tech then your average clock has but almost 50 years later we can’t replicate this??

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

Of course we can. China just did it. The US is doing it next year.

[@audegottoeaudegottoe363]

Have a wonderful October ! N à great New Year's ! / / thanks

[@scottbegley1719]

Put magnetic landing pad that allows you to control the strength to guide landers and help with speed as it might reverse for launches all despite unstable gravity

[@lebowskiduderino89]

Neil Armstrong was a strange man. I don't mean that in a negative way, but there was something about the guy that I always found.....mysterious. After he came back from the moon he went on some bizzare quests, looking for something. But I don't want to come across as thinking he was a bad guy. I think he was a real hero.

[@hcox1111]

He lived right down the road from me in Lebanon, Ohio.

[@Based_Is_Best]

Why would it say there were two replies, but I could only see one?

[@wrodrigues08]

He was hiding a terrible secret…there was no moon landing!

[@cliffordcurry2045]

Picture was entirely misleading and I'm done with this BS.

[@ZeeSA-no2zh]

Thank you,I will just stop before I even watch. Im glad I went through the comments first.

[@dr.astro.hutchins]

The photo was taken in 1968. Most people didn't have smart phones back then

[@davidsheckler4450]

That won't happen until you can admit to yourself that space is Santa Claus for adults

[@davidsheckler4450]

​@@dr.astro.hutchinsYou can't prove a "photo" you weren't there

[@user-lk8qt1gy2z]

Theses people think are being lied to I don't believe what they're telling the Americans lies to scare people

[@jeffp346]

I so much love you're video, being so very well made and informative like I've never heard before.... you are awesome dude, and you rock !!!!!!!!!!

[@keithmcknight7646]

❤ your videos!!!!! 👍🏽

[@supamatta9207]

I wonder if you could go up and down to slow enough velocity , maybe the un even gravity could make a good approach orbit with the moons vounter spin .. i realised unfortunately that velocity is 99% the problem of landing

[@davidvomlehn4495]

There is also the minor part about having the leg-y part down, but I quibble.

[@CoryPavicich]

This was a really informative and well-produced KZbin documentary! Subscribed! Thank you!

[@randywilliams9531]

Magnetic variables could be tracked by engineers and recorded. Maybe watch the path for a landing craft say for about 6 months to register fluctuations and gain insight into what they need to do

[@halweilbrenner9926]

What's the criteria for assigning the poles i.e. southpole/ northpole?

[@michaelholbert191]

I think you should have said something about Apollo 13, it was supposed to land on the moon and failed because of an explosion in the service module on the way to the moon.

[@MikeBurns-bi5xj]

How come the USA landed on the moon 24 times without any problems

[@jamesgeorge4874]

The US is pretty awesome at space stuff.

[@esmenhamaire6398]

experience learnt from initial failures

[@curtisquick1582]

Actually, the US landed without problems only 11 times on the Moon. 5 robotic Surveyor probes and 6 Apollo crews safely soft-landed on the Moon. Still pretty awesome, however.

[@DRU1421]

oh you didnt hear? "they would go back to the moon in a nanosecond but they lost that technology and its a painful process to build it back again".so there just going to mars instead.

[@donaldbullock9718]

THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NEVER TELL THE PEOPLE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS REALLY DOING

[@maxsmith695]

bingo

[@johnmiskimins4104]

10:20 $$$$$$$

[@maxsmith695]

@@johnmiskimins4104 would you step into a rocket headed to the moon if the experts told you the risk of TMF - Total Mission Failure - was 98%. Seems NASA found 3 who would and after 6 missions , no failures. How nice.

[@jessicalouise1580]

That's exactly right. They think we're stupid. Little do they know. People are beginning to see the world for what it is.... everything is being exposed and there's nothing any of the world's governments can do about it.... I wait for the day for total public anarchy!!!! Our general population standing up to these asshats giving them a taste of their own medicine 😂

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@@maxsmith695 really, 98%? I have a very low expectation of that number being correct, since you can’t even get the number of astronauts correct.

[@geofflewis8599]

..I liked that mission that was a collaboration between Nasa and the European Space Agency, someone did the calcs in inches and feet and the others did them in metrics. The probe is now in a hole ..somewhere..

[@chrisregister8021]

It would make sense that when it was formed as a liquid, the heavier elements could settle towards the source of gravitation since it Is a fixed orbit.I believe that it could be something like a lead, gold, atomic soup...

[@chrisregister8021]

@@mclovinfuddpucker Actually, my momma said it was the devil 😇

[@jbfiveash636]

@@mclovinfuddpucker is that you, Mommy?

[@radarw64]

No matter how you try to explain this chunk of stuff under the South Pole, it may explain why the Moon stays in an unusual orbit.

[@bigboss-tl2xr]

Huh? What is unusual about it?

[@radarw64]

@@bigboss-tl2xr i think one side always faces the Earth

[@bigboss-tl2xr]

Yeah, I just don't understand what is "unusual" about that. Many moons are tidally locked. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@radarw64]

@@bigboss-tl2xr Ok, so maybe unusual is the wrong word then. The Earth rotates, and the Moon does not. That is the usual way moons do I guess. haha

[@johnc007]

So NASA wants Space X to land their bullet shaped starship on the moon vertically despite the moon having varying gravity, no atmosphere and an uneven surface? Sounds like a difficult task!

[@robinkelly1770]

It is run by musk so an impoosible task...

[@curtisquick1582]

After landing hundreds or large Falcon boosters on Earth, the Moon, with its lower gravity, will be so much easier for SpaceX. And besides, the computer on board is much more capable than humans at landing.

[@johnc007]

@@curtisquick1582 It’s nothing like landing on Earth. There’s no atmosphere so you can’t use wing flaps to correct the orientation of the upper section. You would need retro thrusters. The surface of the moon is not flat. The video even mentions how hard landing the reusable rockets on earth is. So on the moon it’s a lot more difficult.

[@pmeyer2019]

@@robinkelly1770 how so? He’s succeed at everything he’s done including perfecting reusable rockets. Just you hate him because you’re a liberal. Lol

[@biser1901]

Being able to land on something that is not a solid body that is apparently clearly visible against the blue sky as a transparent semi-self-luminous cold plasma with a silvery white light quite unlike the warm yellow Sun, and is by no means seen as solid a rock during the day against the background of the blue sky is not only impossible and absurd, but also an infinitely insane and childish belief for ignorant people with perverted programmed thinking, as well also for ideological people having a huge illusion of real knowledge. Only NASA and modern astronomy claim and defend the cause that the Moon is a solid, spherical, Earth-like abode that man has actually flown to and stepped on. Only they claim that the Moon is a non-luminous planetoid that receives and reflects all its light from the Sun. The reality, however, is that the Moon is apparently not a solid body, it is certainly round, but not spherical, and it is by no means an Earth-like planetoid that humans could step on. The moon cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun's light at the same time. In order to reflect the light, the reflectors must inevitably be flat or concave like a car headlight, gathering in focus the light rays from any angle of incidence, but if the surface of a given reflector is convex, then any incident ray will be reflected in a straight line with the radius perpendicular to the surface, resulting in scattering of light. In fact, the Moon is proven to be largely transparent and completely self-illuminated, glowing with its unique silver-white light. In many cases the moon is observed half-illuminated from early at night to late in the day with the same angle of illumination, and in the unillumined part, where it should be a dark mass of rock, we see the blue sky and stars in the early morning without changing the angle of the lunate part of the Moon, which part is supposed to be reflected by the Sun until late in the day at the same fixed and unchanging angle of the lunate part of the Moon! When the waxing or waning Moon is visible during the day, it is possible to see the blue sky right through the Moon. And on a clear night, during waxing and waning, it is sometimes even possible to see stars and "planets" directly across the surface of the Moon! Throughout its history, the Royal Astronomical Society has documented many such cases that do not obey the Heliocentric model. The light of the Sun is golden, warm, drying, protective and antiseptic, while the light of the Moon is silvery, cool and damp, putrid and septic. The sun's rays reduce the burning of the pyre, and the moon's rays increase the burning. Vegetable and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry up, shrink, coagulate and lose their tendency to putrefy and putrefy: grapes and other fruits become hard, partially candied and preserved, such as raisins, dates and prunes, animal flesh coagulates , loses its volatile gaseous components, becomes hard, dry and difficult to putrefy. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal matter tends to show symptoms of decay and decay. This proves that Sunlight and Moonlight are distinct, unique and opposite, as they are in the geocentric flat model. A thermometer exposed to direct sunlight will read a higher temperature than another thermometer placed in the shade. But exposed entirely to direct moonlight, a thermometer will read a lower temperature than one placed in the shadow of the moon. That is, in the shadow of the Moon, the temperature of the thermometer is higher than the temperature of the thermometer exposed to direct Moonlight. If Sunlight is concentrated, through large lenses, then at the focal point it creates considerable heat, while Moonlight similarly collected does not create heat. In the Lancet Medical Journal of March 14, 1856, several experiments were detailed which proved that the rays of the moon, when concentrated, could actually lower the temperature of a thermometer by more than eight degrees. Thus Sunlight and Moonlight undoubtedly have quite different properties. This single and irrefutable fact alone, which is supported by experiment, destroys and demolishes the Heliocentric theory, and this elementary experiment can be done by every single person on earth without requiring or needing any education or knowledge of physics or other sciences. Many people believe that the ability of modern astronomy to accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses is a result and unequivocal proof of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact is, however, that eclipses were accurately predicted by various cultures around the world for thousands of years before the "heliocentric ball-Earth" even flashed in Copernicus' imagination. Ptolemy in the First Century accurately predicted eclipses, based on the hexagonal annual pattern of the flat, fixed Earth with the same precision as today. As early as 600 BC Thales accurately predicted an eclipse that ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses occur accurately regularly in 18-year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or spherical earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated regardless of such factors.

[@jBKht931]

Where do I apply for salvage rights for all the lunar junk?

[@JorgeLausell]

Oh MY! I want go check out what's down there!

[@alanb3267]

Considering the recent attempts to land vessels on the moon, resulting in failures, kind of brings light the ever wondering conspiracy. Did we really land on the moon back in the 60s. You would think that 60 years later with the technology improvements it would be second nature for the aerospace industry.

[@user-gt3km8jk3z]

N do u really think there's a rover on mars?😂

[@joerodriguez3002]

No,,we didn't. When in doubt there is no doubt. Overwhelming evidence shows that we didn't.

[@Obshowersyndicate]

You think the government would lie to us??? I can't believe that ..... is the next booster shot available yet

[@timothyhine2258]

Seems to be easier to land on Mars.

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@@joerodriguez3002 Overwhelming evidence shows we did. For one thing, if we didn’t the Soviets would have called bullshit. For another the flight was followed by universities and civilians all over the globe.

[@travislangevin6319]

Maybe someone can explain to me how human astronauts got through the Van Allen radiation belt that is in between Earth and the moon without dying

[@YDDES]

Travislangevin319. Yes, the van Allen belts are not nearly so dangerous to just pass in a few hours, that the silly conspirasists say.

[@riog8082]

Travis you are 💯. Especially since nasa says they havent built a craft yet capable of deflecting the radiation to protect humans. Look it up yourself. It’s nasa’s own video on youtube. The van allen belts Arranged like two nested donuts, the inner belt is mainly energetic protons, while the outer belts contain both protons and electrons. These belts have long been known as 'bad news' for satellites and astronauts, with potentially deadly consequences if you spend too much time within them. Now does that sound dangerous to you? People who say otherwise are trying to keep up with the lies. And in case you get someone that says, Astronauts are safe because they were moved quickly thru the belts, here is an even greater risk. What poses a greater risk, then? The galactic cosmic rays represent a greater risk because we know we can’t protect against them. Solar radiation storms also pose a more challenging risk because these are not easily predicted and they affect all of geospace with increasing severity, the further one is from the protective shield of the Earth’s magnetosphere. Here’s what Piers Jiggens, an engineer from the European Space Agency’s Space Environment and Effects section, and a member of ESA’s Heliophysics Working Group, based at ESA’s technical heart ESTEC in the Netherlands. Originally from the UK, Piers graduated in aeronautics and earned a PhD in astronautics specialising in solar particle radiation and spacecraft design related to the threat posed from solar flares and solar eruptions. He says as stated above “We can’t protect”

[@peterclarke3020]

The answer is - rather quickly…

[@user-lw6rh9rr5v]

Astronauts have never traveled thru the Van Allen radiation belt.

[@user-lw6rh9rr5v]

If facts bear something out weather or not it may be a conspiracy really does not matter.@@YDDES

[@DmitriKoslov1]

Maybe by using a gravity map to plan the descent, but actually control it with optical range sensors it would be easier not to crash the landers?

[@McLovinSB84]

@spacerace there is an editing error check your caption for your first segment.

[@jcollinsg3]

I saw that too and was confused. This video has nothing to do with the SpaceX investigation.

[@weldtheheckoutofitcorporat7823]

Gabo estoy de acuerdo contigo con relacion a los inmigrantes. Todos tenemos derecho a soñar con una vida mejor, pero para nosotros los inmigrantes que vinimos legales, y como americanos que pagamos impuestos, recibir un tren lleno de personas todos los dias, se hace insostenible para cualquier Pais. A parte del hecho de una Frontera abierta donde entran indeseables aparte de la droga. Me gustan tus videos ya que igual que tu tenemos el mismo hobby. Buen vuelo y buenas tomas

[@lancasterhypnotherapy]

Incorrect- The 9 NASA Ranger missions were never designed to "soft land on the Moon". Rangers were designed to remain fully functional with cameras returning photos until impact

[@DavidHauka]

Exactly right! Thanks for letting folks know!

[@MYOB990]

It will be interesting to see how Starship does when landing on the moon.

[@georgiaobserver]

So, the moon has a big unknown mass at its south pole? Does that mean we are gonna have a moonsectonmy? Keep me abreast of the status.

[@ArndBrugman]

Please leave out political statements in your videos, you're better than mainstream media. Thx.

[@harashylander1321]

India is constructing Willa’s on the moon 👍👍👍🌹

[@laxplayer99]

good thing MIT didn't get their way. They wanted the Apollo landers to be automated and the astronauts to be just passengers.

[@esmenhamaire6398]

Flat out wrong as to why those missions that attempted to land on the moon failed to do so. There are mascons on the Earth, too, and its oblateness also has to be accounted for when calculating satellite orbits. Landing failures at the moon have nothing to do with Lunar mascons (they really only affect the long-term evolution of Lunar sattelites orbits), and everything to do with the fact that sending stuff into space is hard; getting complex machinery, whether electronic or otherwise to continue working for very long in space is hard, too. This is due to things like extremes of temperature between sunlit and shadowed parts of a probe, vaccuum welding, radiation affecting electronics, and also just how the materials the probe is made of reacts to an environment like that rather than the relatively stable one that exists on the surface of Earth. India's failure on its first attempt at landing a probe on the moon happened due to the software that guided it being too constrained in what it was designed to cope with. I can't recall the exact details now, but apparently the programmers had been a tad over-optimistic in how accurately the probes trajectory could be flown, and how accurately and quickly the probe could control its attitude and thrust. That India's first attempt at a lunar landing went as well as it did until seconds before landing was quite surprising, and should be regarded very positively, rather than being simply written off as a failure. Their second attempt succeeded because the software was given rather more realistic parameters to work to, and that it succeeded wasn't much of a surprise, under the circumstances, but even so, Indians have every reason to be proud of their space agency's track record thus far. Missions to Mars have only recently started having good success rates, because lessons were learned from previous failures. But through most of the history of space exploration about 50% of all probes sent to Mars failed in one way or another, the worst one being due to a NASA subcontractor working in Imperial measure rather than the metric units of the specifications they were given, followed by NASA up to that point not being terribly good at checking that they got exactly what they paid for from subcontractors. Again, the lesson was learnt, and since then NASA checks that stuff built for them actually was built according to specs. Mars' atmosphere is as much curse as blessing, at about 1% the pressure of Earths. It's thick enough that it can't be ignored - come in too fast and too step and compressive heating will ruin your day - but it's thin enough that you can't just use rockets to slow down to subsonic speeds and then descend gently on parachutes, as can be done when landing on Earth. Drogue parachutes can help with the later stages of slowing the probe down, but actual landings have to be done under thrust. And, of course, there's the greater distance to get there so longer for hardware failures to occur beforehand, etc. This video would've been much better with a little more careful research, and would've avoided giving some of your viewers incorrect impressions about mascons, what they affect most, and to what extent they affect things. Downvoted.

[@warrengage9536]

With all due respect. The Apollo 11, as with all missions, was completely fly by wire. Neil did not fly the lander, all he could do was request the computer to seek another landing site by moving the joystick until he was satisfied with the landing site. The computer flew the lander.

[@tonyhaslam186]

You apparently don’t understand what fly by wire is, and it isn’t the computer making decisions.

[@sonnyburnett8725]

@@tonyhaslam186Well, actually it is. The control stick sends impulses to a series’s of computers and they interpret those impulses and move the appropriate device, in this case the descent engine and RCS thrusters. More and more transport aircraft today are fly by wire.

[@jeremydennis6988]

With all do respect but he still flew it if he wouldn't not of take over the so called computer it would have killed them. Landing in a rock fild

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

@@JennyJackson-zp7xu That is a lie based on a cherry picked piece of footage. He said we never went back, not that we didn’t go. Which is entirely true, after the last Apollo mission humans haven’t gone back. Until next year anyway.

[@meatgoat4084]

"We know that India is home to many of the best-educated and smartest engineers on the planet." It goes without saying that the best-educated and smartest engineers from every nation form the set of the best-educated and smartest engineers on the planet. But you seem to be implying that Indian engineers are extraordinary in some regard. Who is "we" and how do we know this?

[@javiervasquez29]

America has the best.

[@ArupRatanMitra]

Nothing extraordinary about Indian engeniers they do good in certain fields but suck at others mainly because of a lack of capital I believe

[@davidvomlehn4495]

I will not say the have *the* best, but note that India has centuries of matematical and engineering traditions. I'm jealous of ISRO's success and welcome them into the club with open arms. Now it gets *really* fun! (Fingers crossed for iSpace). And, please spend little time debating who's the best and more time on being the best.

[@meatgoat4084]

@@davidvomlehn4495 What debate? It's a forgone conclusion according to this streamer. "We know" it to be true! I've worked with engineers from many nations for over 30 years including many from India and I never knew this fact. I have learned something new today. I am now in the "we" club!

[@zeltron-qk2iu]

He was proving the point dimwit That even with best of all team, tech & brains it's still hard Low iq

[@brettemurphy]

By "lobbed at the center of the near side of the moon" I assume you mean "sent to an orbit that terminated on the center of the near side of the moon" ? Nothing can travel in a straight line towards a planet or moon, especially with realistic amounts of fuel on board.

[@simondavis750]

I love how we were basically just firing things in the direction of the moon and hoping it hit. And somebody said strap me in, I'm going up.

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

It’s a bit more precise than that, but there was speeches written in case of mission failure.

[@thisguy35]

i think it's more americans that are not really popular these days

[@zmblion]

Thanx to our lovely government

[@erictaylor5462]

Landing on the moon is really very hard. Lots of things have to work perfectly to make it happen. If something vital breaks, or someone made a small math error, rather than a soft landing, you have a crash. It's damn lucky we didn't lose an Apollo mission. Even then, one of the missions that intended to land failed.

[@biser1901]

Being able to land on something that is not a solid body that is apparently clearly visible against the blue sky as a transparent semi-self-luminous cold plasma with a silvery white light quite unlike the warm yellow Sun, and is by no means seen as solid a rock during the day against the background of the blue sky is not only impossible and absurd, but also an infinitely insane and childish belief for ignorant people with perverted programmed thinking, as well also for ideological people having a huge illusion of real knowledge. Only NASA and modern astronomy claim and defend the cause that the Moon is a solid, spherical, Earth-like abode that man has actually flown to and stepped on. Only they claim that the Moon is a non-luminous planetoid that receives and reflects all its light from the Sun. The reality, however, is that the Moon is apparently not a solid body, it is certainly round, but not spherical, and it is by no means an Earth-like planetoid that humans could step on. The moon cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun's light at the same time. In order to reflect the light, the reflectors must inevitably be flat or concave like a car headlight, gathering in focus the light rays from any angle of incidence, but if the surface of a given reflector is convex, then any incident ray will be reflected in a straight line with the radius perpendicular to the surface, resulting in scattering of light. In fact, the Moon is proven to be largely transparent and completely self-illuminated, glowing with its unique silver-white light. In many cases the moon is observed half-illuminated from early at night to late in the day with the same angle of illumination, and in the unillumined part, where it should be a dark mass of rock, we see the blue sky and stars in the early morning without changing the angle of the lunate part of the Moon, which part is supposed to be reflected by the Sun until late in the day at the same fixed and unchanging angle of the lunate part of the Moon! When the waxing or waning Moon is visible during the day, it is possible to see the blue sky right through the Moon. And on a clear night, during waxing and waning, it is sometimes even possible to see stars and "planets" directly across the surface of the Moon! Throughout its history, the Royal Astronomical Society has documented many such cases that do not obey the Heliocentric model. The light of the Sun is golden, warm, drying, protective and antiseptic, while the light of the Moon is silvery, cool and damp, putrid and septic. The sun's rays reduce the burning of the pyre, and the moon's rays increase the burning. Vegetable and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry up, shrink, coagulate and lose their tendency to putrefy and putrefy: grapes and other fruits become hard, partially candied and preserved, such as raisins, dates and prunes, animal flesh coagulates , loses its volatile gaseous components, becomes hard, dry and difficult to putrefy. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal matter tends to show symptoms of decay and decay. This proves that Sunlight and Moonlight are distinct, unique and opposite, as they are in the geocentric flat model. A thermometer exposed to direct sunlight will read a higher temperature than another thermometer placed in the shade. But exposed entirely to direct moonlight, a thermometer will read a lower temperature than one placed in the shadow of the moon. That is, in the shadow of the Moon, the temperature of the thermometer is higher than the temperature of the thermometer exposed to direct Moonlight. If Sunlight is concentrated, through large lenses, then at the focal point it creates considerable heat, while Moonlight similarly collected does not create heat. In the Lancet Medical Journal of March 14, 1856, several experiments were detailed which proved that the rays of the moon, when concentrated, could actually lower the temperature of a thermometer by more than eight degrees. Thus Sunlight and Moonlight undoubtedly have quite different properties. This single and irrefutable fact alone, which is supported by experiment, destroys and demolishes the Heliocentric theory, and this elementary experiment can be done by every single person on earth without requiring or needing any education or knowledge of physics or other sciences. Many people believe that the ability of modern astronomy to accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses is a result and unequivocal proof of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact is, however, that eclipses were accurately predicted by various cultures around the world for thousands of years before the "heliocentric ball-Earth" even flashed in Copernicus' imagination. Ptolemy in the First Century accurately predicted eclipses, based on the hexagonal annual pattern of the flat, fixed Earth with the same precision as today. As early as 600 BC Thales accurately predicted an eclipse that ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses occur accurately regularly in 18-year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or spherical earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated regardless of such factors.

[@ccc_the_painful_truth]

So "lucky" 🤣

[@Fuff63]

Enjoyed this, thx. True, in failure comes learning and is the path to success. It will be interesting to see how modern AI tech affects space exploration going forward. Being able to learn and pilot in the moment. Open the pod bay doors HAL….Cheers.

[@mobayguy]

Good insight Thx

[@user-ct9ts2oj1r]

Could you make a dust wind to land? Or a fog? Are you sure your not landing on atmosphere?

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

Yes, they’re sure they’re not landing on atmosphere. For one thing, it’s impossible to land ON atmosphere. For a second, Luna has basically no atmosphere.

[@samscalz]

The mass is a solid core that is being pushed towards the surface. It has a massive electrical charge

[@patrobbromccreanor820]

The averge temps between -270 F to + 270 F ?

[@rentechpad]

Given that we do not exactly know how the moon was formed but if it was formed from a collision between earth and another large body, as the left overs caught in earths gravity came together to create the moon its also possible that debris of different densities settled in under the effect of earths gravity to form a moon that did not arrange the material available in a pattern of even distribution.

[@pikifrino]

A very interesting video!.. Thank you very much!...

[@mrgcav]

Very well explained.

[@johnhough7738]

I imagine that after landing on ships, landing on a nice big solid stable deck like the moon would be a doddle? But, getting there and back doesn't appeal to me, even those views would pale after a while (twenty minutes?)

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

Ships and stations aren’t any harder really. All speed and motion is relative.

[@MrHalvnir]

Someone must have just woke up. They were talking about "Masscon;s" back when Apollo 11 was landing,

[@silverbemr]

Was it just me or were the title slides completely screwed up?

[@babakbabak5329]

I did not know that gravity changes on moon, that is wild. Any idea what is the spread of the change? Imaging you are 160 lbs in on location and 180 lbs in another!

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

It changes on Earth too. You literally weigh less on the equator.

[@babakbabak5329]

@@UpperDarbyDetailing Ha! I didn't know that.

[@jweiler7309]

its most likely nothing , but curious just the same,starting at 3:45 were it shows the moons surface there is one crater with something sticking up from the almost center of a crater giving off a shadow, again probably nothing , but normally there isnt something sticking up in the middle of a crater is there?

[@patrickbuechel2599]

Landing in a horizontal approach would allow for errors like a plane, landing on skids or even wheels. As for lack of gravity downward thrust vectoring,,,figure it out

[@joseeduardobolisfortes]

Perhaps there is a group of local bureaucrats deciding who can or not get the Gray Card...

[@kennethpole2439]

"... it could, in theory, could be just about anything ..." 😂

[@rukuram2031132]

Very niece information Sir Thank you.

[@martinnewtonholmes]

How is your Niece BTW ?

[@OldSloGuy]

The GRAIL data must have been corrupted. The moon's gravity map is quite detailed. However, our mathematical models used in mapping assume a solid rocky moon with some heavy regions distributed between the core and the surface. However, if these heavy areas are mostly close the surface, then the gravity map is only useful for orbiting spacecraft, not moon landings. We really don't know much about the interior of the moon except it is not similar to earth's interior. For that matter, we don't know very much about earth's interior either. Much of the formulas we use daily come from textbooks which use truncated formulas. When they were first published, the missing terms would have been buried in measurement noise and could be safely neglected. The concept of 'plenty good enough' has a neglected time function. As our capabilities get better, the textbook formulas do not get re-examined. That is settled science.

[@daledavis671]

@ 2:45 looks like a building to meon the right side of screen as the shot pans over the surface. Where is this footage from?

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

No it doesn’t.

[@daledavis671]

OK Boomer@@UpperDarbyDetailing

[@TinShackVideos]

Asteroids are being landed on ,thats's got to be harder.

[@hcox1111]

If you believe it, the government has proven itself a liar more than once.

[@bobross3172]

We have a " lumpy gravitational pull " as well. Neil touched on it recently.

[@necromancer0616]

Odd, at 3:59 of this video there is a circle with uniform intersecting lines right in the middle of the picture and in the circle I could swear that I see squar-like walls ans pyramids. I might be crazy but it's not a joke. If this is on the south pole of the moon maybe it could be why the gravity is higher there. Just sayin...

[@UpperDarbyDetailing]

You might be crazy

[@Nicklan1961]

I love it you're claiming the remote controlled were robots in 1966 what year were you born.