Why is it Still So Hard to Land on the Moon?

[@kipandcop1]

When youtube is filled with low quality, repeated AI generated "content" like the ones of your sponsor, the platform will become unuseable for finding high quality informative videos like yours. I don't see a world where fully AI created content is good for anyone except people trying to get rich quick

[@Sonnell]

hopefully such AI generated crap will not make anyone rich. As these tools are close to be free to use, it is already filled youtube with crap content, so it will be difficult to make standout content with them. I think for AI it is the most difficult to create something unique and standout, since it works by repeating things that is already existing.

[@kievbutcher]

Honestly. I found myself asking out loud what benefit this type of service provides. Seems like it will only make the content farm problem worse.

[@andrewn7365]

This is why I'll be unsubbing if I see another AI content generator sponsorship. It'll be sad because I've followed this channel for years, but I can't support that

[@voodoonights1671]

Yup. Awful in places

[@Wayoutthere]

@@andrewn7365 Same. Fk A.I

[@photog.prince]

You need to drop that sponsorship ASAP. I just walked past an older coworker of mine and I'm 99% positive she was unknowingly watching a fully AI created video on Facebook. That technology is a scammer's dream come true.

[@andrewn7365]

That's why I made the decision to unsub if there's another AI content generator sponsor, even though I really like Paul and his channel, and have been watching it for years.

[@SenorTucano]

What’s Facebook? Is that something for old people?

[@oxxal7357]

I have seen the same trend going up with some african-americans who is trying to rewrite all history to the point that everything and everyone who ever meant something was Black.

[@pm9601]

Unsubbing now.

[@orenashkenazi9813]

I thought I could accept just about any sponsorship ad if it meant my favorite youtubers could get paid, but appearently AI ads are a step too far for me. I don't want to judge anyone for trying to earn a living, but I also can't watch videos that promote the very software plagiarizing them.

[@deejaymalta]

how could a hard working youtuber be so tone deaf?

[@OnionChoppingNinja]

AI generated content (I REFUSE to call it art) makes a mockery of human emotion and inspiration (the two things needed to make real art and both is a computer incapable of) and is an insult to creativity.

[@viccie211]

​@@OnionChoppingNinja I get where you come from. Though it can help with creativity in my experience. I've used AI image generators many times as a DM in my Dungeons and Dragons campaign. I use it to generate illustrations for my players that I otherwise would never be able to create. I generate scene illustrations, character portraits, images for props (for instance, news paper headline images) and many more things. The creativity comes from me knowing what I want to prompt the generator. The actual result is what the computer makes. Now I'll never say that it's better than a good artist could do, but I'm not a good artist (I'm trying to get into painting, but It's a long road) and even then I could never out put the amount of images I use in an evening session. It's a tool and I use it as such. Then again there is a lot of plagiarism involved and that needs to be sorted out.

[@glennac]

@@viccie211 Using tools like this for your own personal use is one thing. Using them to quickly flood the market with “low effort” content, or worse, venal profit is another thing entirely. 🤔

[@andrewn7365]

The only thing to do is to unsub if it happens again. I'll miss CD, but I cannot support those sponsors.

[@Vednier]

Seeing Curious Droid endorsing AI videos is very sad thing. Its just means that even more soon then we expected KZbin will be filled with low quality meaningless AI crap. Even today is more and more hard to find good stuff like this channel. Well, maybe Droid really is working for robots. Sooo sad...

[@trevormugalu3797]

Running an ad for a science video creating AI yet you are a science communicator yourself feels like you've just shot yourself in the foot.

[@sebrassino]

It's so stupid. Sorry to say.

[@trevormugalu3797]

IKR@@sebrassino

[@trevormugalu3797]

IKR@@sebrassino

[@andrewn7365]

It's not just shooting himself in the foot, it's pushing and legitimizing a harmful product that will be embraced by the likes of scammers troll farms. It's a shame, and even though I really enjoy CD's videos, I will unsub if there is another AI content generator sponsorship.

[@Susu986]

Agree. We want human creativity.

[@jake9705]

Just design the landers to land on their side! God, do I have to think of everything?!

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

More like have all sides be able to land on.

[@originalmin]

That's what the Japanese lunar spacecraft SLIM was designed to do. Then it landed upside down.

[@samsonsoturian6013]

All I can think of is a robot bouncing off the surface LoonyToons style@@gerogyzurkov2259

[@PrimeRibb69]

The country of (pick one you want to slur) designed a lander that could land upwards, upsidedown and sideways. It ending up landing in Detroit.

[@davidsoom1551]

Or just show us some more fake sh*t like they did before. Its proven, everyone will buy it.

[@SkulShurtugalTCG]

You can EASILY get better sponsors than AI generators. Don't sell yourself short next time.

[@rikrikonius1301]

Like Raid Shadow Legends (not kidding on that comparison)

[@BazilRat]

@@rikrikonius1301 I'd rather Raid than AI

[@JakeTheBear1]

Realest

[@Brock_in_the_North]

We need to pushing back on AI that takes away from human creativity not promoting it

[@Omnius777]

I really like this channel, but this sponsorship threatens to dismantle credibility for Droid as well as every other good science channel. I will not stay subbed if you keep up this sponsorship.

[@fastertove]

Sponsors can impact credibility. I agree with what others have already written.

[@RobertPruitt-y7m]

You're a Luddite, plain and simple. In the early 1800's, aka the industrial revolution, you would have been smashing machines. All technology has good and bad attributes. And in the early stages, there are a lot more bad than good. AI will do amazing things for us. Trying to hobble it in it's early stages, is beyond idiotic. It's like removing your colon to keep from getting colon cancer.

[@boredgrass]

@ video AI: please don't. Videos like this sample, make me run for the hills screaming.

[@cmdraftbrn]

makes great comedy though

[@stevenkelby2169]

​@@cmdraftbrnI disagree 👎

[@putrid.p]

That demo short was utterly awful

[@andrewn7365]

You can show Paul it's an unacceptable line to cross by unsubbing if it happens again

[@Gurumeierhans]

Thats exactly the way the science spam clickbait channels on youtube operate...

[@profil4e]

As much as I've loved your channel, and followed through with it for years, the AI generated video plug left a bitter taste. Especially knowing that Science/Documentary AI generated content are on the rise on youtube. I love your channel because it's not "Content", but because it's interesting. The AI part really makes me want to stop looking at it, however.

[@windowboy]

Meh. Just fast forward ya knob

[@andrewn7365]

Its painful, but I plan on unsubbing if I see another AI content generation sponsorship. I cannot support that.

[@Wayoutthere]

Same here, A.I will end channels like this. The Real Ones will be drowned out in a torrent of A.I nonsense.

[@nobiazcustomsinc5030]

Yeah so....are any of you on his patreon? Didnt think so. Man has to make a living. Dont like tough

[@VincentNajger1]

Uuurrgh .... InVideo AI .... we're already inundated with AI dross on YT. This will totally kill the platform.

[@tonyzed6831]

Yup. We don't need that.

[@sunnyjim1355]

No it won't. All the best channels on YT don't use anything like that, or certainly not reliant on such. Just the dross does.

[@patreekotime4578]

​@sunnyjim1355 and what happens when the AI videos crack the code of appeasing the alghorythm and that is all we see?

[@VincentNajger1]

@@sunnyjim1355 They will probably say something like "97% of the great Artworks were painted/assembled not by the famous artist who's name is on it, but by the students toiling underneath them, but it's about the concept and finished piece, not about the physical act of creation"..... but then they also argue massively that art is ALSO about the physical act of creation....either way, art is now about money laundering, so the analogy may not transfer.....but it probably will.

[@quistador7]

It's astonishing he accepted this bullshit. Especially after the video Kyle Hill made.

[@bwjclego]

Minor correction. The software patch on the IM-1 lander failed, so Odysseus actually landed with *no* working altimeter at all. It landed with an IMU and optical navigation, within it's targeted landing zone, with only a 100m error in the expected altitude at the time of landing. That error is why it landed a bit fast and a bit sideways, it thought it still had 100m to go. Quite astonishing.

[@MrKen-wy5dk]

All that stuff worked, until it didn't. Scratch 8 astronauts stranded on Mars. Next idea!

[@josephd.5524]

Ask your sponsor how they trained their AI and whether or not they just fed it KZbin videos.

[@derkeksinator17]

I love how it went full canadian first!

[@Pelmenji]

Obviosly if you want an AI to make videos that fit a certain platform, you train it on videos from that platform. Or is there more that you mean by "just" feeding them KZbin videos?

[@M0ToR]

why does it matter? should Google be paid for the videos or is “watching” ads (and training on them too) enough as it is enough to let you watch youtube?

[@ragnoxis05]

​@@Pelmenji He probably means "Is it woke?"

[@D.Jay.]

If the sources used to "feed" the AI are open or free, then how is that any different from you or I "feeding" it to ourselves.

[@Hobbes746]

Before Apollo 11, NASA ran these missions to the moon: 8 Pioneer missions, all of which failed 9 Ranger missions, 6 of which failed 7 Surveyor missions, 2 of which failed 5 Lunar Orbiters, 1 of which failed. That’s 29 unmanned missions to the moon, 17 of which failed. They kept trying, and every failure improved subsequent attempts. They also ran the entire Gemini program to test procedures for Apollo, then 6 unmanned Apollo missions to test the spacecraft. Apollo 7-10 were manned missions to test the spacecraft and procedures again.

[@FrankyPi]

There were only 3 unmanned Apollo tests, Apollo 4, 5 and 6. If you only count Saturn V then it's only Apollo 4 and 6. If you count all other components going back to Saturn I launches, and ground tests, then there were 23 tests in total not involving crew.

[@MrKen-wy5dk]

But the American taxpayer was footing the bill with an unlimited checking account.

[@MagicRoosterBluesBand]

Too bad they never went. What a waste.

[@FrankyPi]

@@MagicRoosterBluesBand Yeah, they never went 6 times and 9 times in total, it takes a special kind of irrational and ignorant to unironically think this.

[@markst.germain9286]

I think they realized it was never gonna happen and had no choice but to fake it.

[@casinodelonge]

Where are the moonbases I was promised as a kid!

[@STho205]

At Pinewood Studios

[@TheChipmunk2008]

On the moon, have you checked them out ? (kidding)

[@sparrowbe4k802]

Yep!!! I actually had the two model Space 1999 "Eagles". I don't know what became of them but they were over-engineered for what is effectively a childs toy. In fact, I think those toys were better than the original film props. And they were heavy.

[@TheChipmunk2008]

they hired stanley kubrick, he insisted it was done on location

[@Aveance94]

In my dreams and until my demands are met they'll stay there.

[@marckyle5895]

Waiting for the Captcha that demands I click all the craters before letting me see my card balance.

[@Haddley333]

Skipped 2 ads then an ai ad embedded.

[@beckerod777]

You see ads? How quaint.

[@Petertronic]

Sponsorblock. Works like a charm.

[@jnhkx]

use sponsorblock extension. Saved me hundred of hours in YT.

[@putrid.p]

If I see another ad for AI content generation I will unsub. Which would be a big shame, but this crosses a line.

[@andrewn7365]

I'm with you on this. It's a real shame!

[@maxstr]

Welcome to 2024

[@basedaf5580]

god i love KZbin vanced

[@soundtrancecloud5101]

Take a chill pill 💊

[@deano023]

The sponsor of this video truly triggered me enough to instantly unsubscribe, as much as I love curious droid videos I refuse to support a content creator who supports such a product.

[@serious_filip522]

I can't believe you're promoting Ai crap

[@SicilianDefence]

The sponsorship’s choice was terrible 👎

[@digysdosdiy9113]

As soon as I saw your sponsor, I assumed that this video was artificially generated and left

[@breuilly66]

Great video as always! As many other have said. You can do so much better sponsorship wise!

[@j777]

When asked why we can't just repeat Apollo, I always say the odds of death would be unacceptable today. Apollo was not 99.9% safe..

[@mortson978]

True. The risk was high and well understood, and there were contingency plans in place for potential mission failures. President Nixon had speeches prepared if the astronauts were stranded on the moon, and perhaps most disturbingly of all, nasa planned to cut communication with the stranded astronauts to preserve their dignity. They didn't want recordings of the men panicking and lamenting as they faced their lonely demise. I think people really forget the guts these guys had to risk it all like that. A different breed for sure.

[@MervinM123]

Not sure why Apollo was not 99.9% safe, there were 9 crew missions and all came back including Apollo 13, statistically speaking it is 99.9% safe.

[@j777]

@@MervinM123 the survival of 9 missions is not enough to demonstrate 99.9% with a useful margin of error. For example, the safety rate required for 50/50 odds of surviving 9 missions is around 90%.

[@MagicRoosterBluesBand]

It never happened anyways, so your point is mute. Can't go today, let alone 56 years ago.

[@j777]

@@MagicRoosterBluesBand whatever flat earther

[@maan7715]

Oh very good timing! Glad we are still getting videos from you.

[@billpugh58]

The worst thing about moon landing videos are the tin foil hatters it attracts😂

[@hagerty1952]

The "new move fast and break things" development model? That's the way the Soviets did it in the '50s and '60s. It resulted in the R7, the descendent of which is still used today. They were on the way towards making the N-1, a version of the Space X Starship (shown at 5:15 in your video), operational but ran into two problems: 1) the chief designer, Sergei Korolev died before the first flight, and 2) his successor, Vasily Mishin, did not have the political skills of Korolev to stop rival designer Valentin Glushko from shutting down the program. It's a shame since the fourth, and last, N-1 flight came within a few seconds of staging. Since the only truly experimental part of the design was the first stage, the rest would probably succeeded. The fifth flight, which would very likely have been successful, was already on the launch pad undergoing fueling tests when the program was cancelled.

[@favesongslist]

Totally agree

[@surferdude4487]

The only similarities between the SpaceX super-heavy booster and the N1 are that they are both rockets and they both have a lot of engines. Different fuel, different hull materials, different ignition systems. Super-heavy was designed and built to be reusable from the ground up. The N1 used engines that could only be lit once I.E. they could not be test fired. Super heavy cleared the launch pad on the first try, and has met test objectives on every flight. The N1 was really good at blowing up. Not the same.

[@hagerty1952]

@@surferdude4487 - You're kinda-sorta right on most of those. However: 1) The N-1 was 60 years ago. 2) The NK15 and NK33 engines can be test fired and re-started as much as any other liquid fuel rocket engine. The reason they weren't was strictly economics. They put their (much more limited) resources into flight hardware rather than ground testing. That's just they way the Soviets did things. These engines were then sold by Aerojet as the AJ-27 until the supply ran out. They are still more efficient than the Raptors. 3) Of the four N-1's launched, three of them were destroyed by ground command to keep the debris from falling any further downrange. Only the second flight (N1-L5) was an "unplanned" explosion only 100 meters off the ground.

[@favesongslist]

@@hagerty1952 Also they both used the same design philosophy is to build test and refine. both now use hot staging . The also were testing full flow combustion engines and the use of Metholox. Given more money and advanced electronics they were moving towards what SpaceX are working on.

[@surferdude4487]

@@hagerty1952 More efficient than the Raptor? I doubt it. More efficient than the Raptor 3? Just no. Relightable? No. Once those suckers were fired and shut down, that was it. And it was because they cheaped out on the ignition system, which makes no logical sense after the amount of money they must have spent developing those engines. And yes, 60 years ago. We've learned a lot about material science, manufacturing techniques, computer modeling and computer control since then. That is why the Super-heavy is not only superior in every measurable way, but is also reusable. If you only want to use a rocket once, why not strap a bunch of SRBs together like China is doing?

[@MarcoRoepers]

The succes of Apollo is not only due to the incredible amount of money but also showing a great ability to organize . I have some doubts if we have today the same ability.

[@Clone683]

A problem is NASA in the 60s was very much the wild west, they took risks that would just be unpalatable now. I think Neil Armstrong himself said he thought he had a 50/50 chance of making it back.

[@samsonsoturian6013]

They also had orders of magnitude more budget

[@hockeyguy820]

This is very true. Chuck Yeager's autobiography gives a great account of what things were like in the 40's, 50's and 60's, the prevailing attitudes, and the risks taken. Muroc air force base (now Edwards) ran out of streets to be named after dead test pilots.

[@davidsoom1551]

He also said he couldn't see stars in cis lunar space. We live in the Milky Way by God!

[@raytrevor1]

I thought he said that it was a 50/50 chance of success. ie. they may not be able to achieve the landing.

[@hockeyguy820]

@@raytrevor1: One of their abort contingencies was to fire the ascent engine of the LM in case they got into trouble during descent. For example if fuel ran out in the descent stage tanks and they were starting to drop. I believe the only time that maneuver was actually performed was during Apollo 10 when an intentional partial descent to within a certain distance of the lunar surface was done. Luckily it was not needed after that.

[@captainzac24]

I'm not gonna unsub because of one ad read but I can't keep watching videos that are helpinng make the internet worse. I'm not saying AI tech is evil but it's being used to flood the internet with low quality trash

[@sirvivor_1974]

KZbinrs accepting AI video generators as sponsors seems like digging your own grave happily. Sad to see that on this reputable channel.

[@robertmartin1116]

The ads are insufferable.

[@JordanAF808]

“Move fast and break things” could also accurately describe a toddler

[@NACAM42]

And you can bet toddlers are learning from it too.

[@RCAvhstape]

We don't need AI to land on the moon, we just need more practice.

[@seaskimmer]

Yep, A.I will never be a perfect substitute for human "feel" of a situation.

[@FrankyPi]

It's definitely needed for robotic landers, but for human landers it would be part of the automated program, there would still be a manual option so the pilot can take over if needed or if he wants to for final descent.

[@mikepatton8691]

​Eventually no living being will be able to come close to the abilities of an AI controlled craft, in space or an atmosphere. The US Air Force put experienced combat pilots against an AI controlled opponent in a simulator, the humans didn’t stand a chance. You can yell at the AI all you want to get off your lawn, but the field of artificial intelligence is improving by huge leaps and bounds at a relatively insanely fast pace. AI is the future, no matter how anyone feels about it. Personally I am profoundly curious to see how things turn out.

[@RCAvhstape]

@@mikepatton8691 Even if you're using AI (which is a misnomer anyway) you still need to practice building, programming, and operating vehicles that land on alien surfaces. AI isn't magic.

[@tabascoraremaster1]

Practice for what? For making better fake footage so we can't see trough the lies?

[@jonboy4329]

the men that made the moon missions possible were absolute mad wizards.

[@MrKen-wy5dk]

With slide rules.

[@ColinJonesPonder]

Skipped through the ad. AI generated content is uncomfortable for me to watch. Please don't lower yourself to that level.

[@2down4up]

I’m honestly surprised that someone such as yourself would promote an AI antithesis of yourself. Please don’t. Nobody profits from that except the few.

[@humanitarianb0mbing161]

Thank you Paul!! Now I dont need to wait or watch your videos ever again! JUST need a nVideo and can make my own video and chill every day THX BUDDY!! 😎😎😎

[@padawanmage71]

When you say we can’t use what was used before during the Apollo missions because the tech has leapfrogged for the last few decades, i do wonder if anyone has taken the basic designs of the Surveyor or even the Apollo tech and just upgraded it? The computers alone would’ve weighed so much, that an iPhone could probably do all the computing needed.

[@thesteelrodent1796]

Your average modern washing machine has more processing power than the Apollo command module og lunar lander combined, but the difference is, on Apollo the computer merely helped the people land the craft, it didn't really do anything other than calculate the values they needed to fly. Now that they're using new unproven technology and trying to land fully autonomously, the computer has to do a lot more than just calculate where the craft is at

[@Hobbes746]

The Surveyors landed blind: no terrain avoidance at all. They’d happily try to land with one foot on a boulder or in a crater. NASA got lucky with the Surveyors.

[@padawanmage71]

@@Hobbes746 I didn’t know that, thanks. These days, a basic radar and even a computer would fit in the frame, to give it added ability to land safely?

[@Hobbes746]

@@padawanmage71 Yes. The modern landing systems are pretty good, actually. Several of the recent attempts were let down by dumb mistakes (IM1: they forgot to switch on the altimeter, SLIM had an engine failure 50 meters above the surface), but e.g. Chandrayaan-3 and the Chinese landers showed these obstacle avoidance systems do work and allow accurate landings.

[@padawanmage71]

@@Hobbes746 It's hard not feeling like we are trying to reinvent the wheel. In the 60s it was just a solid rubber tire, but still a tire. These days the tire would be steel belted, with better traction and a rim made of space age metal. But in the end, it's still a tire.

[@skylimit3477]

China is making it seems very easy !! They never failed so far, including landing on the MARS on their first try !!! Amazing !!

[@gregbrookman]

Fantastic video as always Paul. Your last point about developing ways to kill each other rather than carrying on the lunar projects was especially poignant.

[@weshard1]

Please don’t endorse that AI shit. I’m disappointed by that.

[@michaeldunham3385]

It's the future

[@norgeek]

So is the extinction of humanity, doesn't need to be celebrated or expedited though

[@TTURocketDoc]

Well done. As someone who worked on a couple of these projects I want to say thanks for your effort to report complete and accurate information.

[@FirstLast-vr7es]

Thank goodness KZbin provided that helpful "Context" link under your video.

[@Bora1333]

Come on man, I like AI as much as the next guy, but don't advertise that shit as a self respecting creator.

[@extragoogleaccount6061]

It will suck when AI videos flood platforms....but everyones response is still pretty harsh. Am I missing something?

[@mondodimotori]

@@extragoogleaccount6061The platform has been flooded by shitty contents for more than 10 years.

[@Wayoutthere]

@@extragoogleaccount6061 Because at this time you can still tell the difference. In 2 years time you cannot and most ppl are just not savvy or critical enough, and stop caring.

[@kittendkat5100]

Coinciding with the end of the Apollo program was the printing of money, ending of the gold standard, and the beginning of the end of the middle class - all at the same time. Coincidence?

[@arobatto]

Your closing statement. Very well said sir.

[@jimmyzhao2673]

It's probably more profitable to build weapons than space probes.

[@MikeVDrumming]

Another fantastic, consise, and well researched video. Keep up the amazing content Paul!

[@David-yo5ws]

I second that. And I liked Paul's little plug at the end, for peace.

[@rendermanpro]

Eh, that wave of hate.... might results of the ad video generative ai are not good, but was interesting to see new tools that came up. Few years ago all of this was not possible even at that level... Most people spoiled today with new tech

[@TheBigExclusive]

I'm still waiting on my jetpack and flying cars I was promised as a child.

[@SpaceCoast_]

First they just need to deliver the Hoover board from Back to the future.

[@sunnyjim1355]

We already have both those things. Jetpacks aren't commercially avialable because the human body is simply not suited to that mode of flight. Hence why they are only used for stunts, etc. And we have 'flying cars' - they are called planes. It's just that they function poorly as cars. But you can get one if you want one.

[@johnjimmies8256]

​@@sunnyjim1355they have those flying cars that just look like giant quadcopters

[@benjamindover4337]

Well at least we have mandatory pronouns and diversity hiring.

[@AndrewBlacker-t1d]

Who promised you ANYTHING?

[@bobwoolcock]

Thanks Paul for the detailed comparison of how we did it in the sixties (with a much bigger budget) and how they’re doing it now. One thing that I still don’t understand about the latest attempt a couple months ago though is why the communication was so sketchy as they approached the moon. Seems like that would be better now. I’m also unclear on why the toxic chemicals used back in the day can’t be used today - at least in the vacuum of the lunar surface.

[@arashputata]

thank you for your final message

[@TucsonDude]

Yeah, I used to work in the Defense industry and even we asked the same question(s).

[@CyberSystemOverload]

I love this channel and it's host but that sponsorship plug has me very worried. YT is already inundated with AI generated rubbish but (and here's the scary part) in the years to come it will get better and better until one day we won't be able to tell. This is just the begining :(

[@ThePhilosophyOfNature]

Thank You Paul.

[@TioDeive]

Thank you for just another wonderful video.

[@rauladdams5709]

AI companies are a bad sponsor. Bad faith, inherently.

[@prodelboy2743]

Well said at the end. Great vid. Much love from Northern Ireland

[@onieyoh9478]

5:40 There was an interesting short sci-fi story I read years ago that was about tour "boats" that cruised around on the moons dust because it was too soft to walk on. The boat sinks and the story follows the crew, passengers, and rescue team. Pretty fun little story. If anyone knows the name please let me know because I can't remember. 🙃

[@fastertove]

I'd be interested to hear that as well.

[@pyr0b1rd]

I remember reading that a few years ago, though I had to look up the name. 'A Fall of Moondust' - Arthur C Clarke if I'm not mistaken that is

[@fastertove]

Listening to the BBC Night Theatre version now.. Not bad :)@@pyr0b1rd

[@wings9925]

Great to see your content again. Thanks 👍🏻

[@DisgrunteledDachshund]

Echoing a lot of the comments i am seeing about your sponsorship choice. As a science communicator who works hard to educate your audience, and does a great job of it, why promote the thing that is used so widely for disinformation?

[@benjaminmcdill3825]

I love how you tastefully throw in your opinion at the end: "...if we didn't spend the vast sums of money perfecting ways to kill each other..." Couldn't agree more. Also noticing the many comments about the AI video promotion and I'd have to agree that I'm not into it. But keep making these [original] high quality videos for us! Always great content.

[@Predator42ID]

The irony though is that most of the tech we have is a direct result of perfecting ways of killing each other. Still, I imagine if Nasa was folded into the Space Force then we'd be seeing bases on the Moon very rapidly.

[@DLWELD]

All the new landers sure look top heavy compared to the early successful ones.

[@simongeard4824]

You can't accurately judge mass distribution by looking at the outside.

[@raytrevor1]

Top heavy and narrow track of the lander legs. Hello SpaceX.

[@Schmexxy]

AI ads are so disappointing to see on this channel

[@boredgrass]

Without intention to complain! I'm delighted to see you back! I was getting a bit concerned! Hope you are well!

[@ErnestJay88]

Because spacecraft need a "Perfectly flat surface" to touch down just like a helipad, a simple wrong calculation means spacecraft could tip over during landing.

[@zoolygreb7885]

It's "still" hard, because it was hard when NASA first attempted it, and as far as I know, the moon hasn't changed any.

[@robgrey6183]

Moon's the same. People are different.

[@EgonSorensen]

Objective AI: Land on the grund with the right side up. Operational AI: I apologize for any confusion....

[@knoxduder]

This channel is the best!

[@Endidixknsej]

Literally I love every video

[@jackaroo85]

Thank u for the statement at the end!

[@majoraccentr]

Usually I like these videos but the sponsor kills it for me. You can do better in the sponsors you choose.

[@thorin1045]

"like we forget how to do it after so much spent on it" in part yes, we forget that it needed massive support and insane amount of money. the current ones that tries and fails (or succeed) are made on the budget of an ant farm compared to the apollo and similar projects. and most tries it without much prior knowledge on their own, yes, we have the general knowledge on how to do it, but very little practical one, with almost no budget for anything. the few who make it work are the strange ones, not the failures.

[@Lion_McLionhead]

Hard for the west but not for China.

[@babusastry]

If the lander was allowed to have ANY horizontal velocity to land on a surface, unlike a tarmak, then there is a FUNDAMENTAL error in assumptions of design!

[@Hobbes746]

The lander did not have a functioning altimeter, so its estimate of where the ground was was off. That’s why it landed with horizontal velocity.

[@stur5170]

Excellent video as always! One thing though - as far as I'm aware, that $4.2 bil fee for Artemis 1 statement is a little bit dubious, as it includes R&D cost of the Orion-SLS. Not unlike saying the first shuttle launch costed the whole shuttle programme's R&D cost to that point; which isn't a fair assessment.

[@louithrottler]

I was launched onto the earth in 1972 and I've forgotten just about f**king everything.

[@carbon_no6]

In my opinion Curious Droid makes the best videos on KZbin!

[@fishstix4209]

Or apparently, he may be very descriptive to an ai....

[@Wayoutthere]

Nope, A.I will and he advertised them... Talk about shooting yourself in te foot.

[@gabrielleraul]

sciencey stuff aside, I'm here only for the shirts, always.

[@toxlaximus3297]

People were is such a rush to get to the moon that they never realised it was a waste of time, there is nothing to do on the moon except build regolith castles.

[@jayjay-bz3rr]

8:06. Actually the end of the decade would have been December 31st 1970. Not 1969 as so many believed. We had a whole extra year to fulfill Kennedy’s challenge.

[@Ruda-n4h]

Correct.

[@lunabell-2]

your sponsor made me unsubscribe

[@deano023]

Me too. I love Curious Droid videos but I honestly refuse to support someone who supports a company that creates these horrible AI videos.

[@lunabell-2]

@@deano023 happy to see that people still have standards 🥰

[@royharkins7066]

Well done on that superb closing , I wonder where we’d be now ❤

[@Firkinnel]

I wonder why they haven't tried landing on the Sun.

[@Firkinnel]

I know it is hot but they could do it at night !

[@willywonka4340]

​@@Firkinnel Ba-Dum-Tss!!

[@stephentoons]

is this video about moon landig or ai videos?

[@STho205]

There was a time China were the greatest navigators in the world....then they stopped. There was a time when Italian and Portuguese sailors were the envy of all Europe. When Norwegians were the great explorers of the Americas There was a time The Netherlands was the largest commercial commonwealth. There was a time Norwegian expeditions got to big international trophy targets. All of that passed over time. Nobody forgot how to do it, like the fall of Rome is celebrated by historians (not by engineers and architects though who know knowledge continued). Eventually times change and objectives do too. We're going back because the Chinese are....that is the only reason....just like the 1960s because the USSR were going.

[@patosentado9665]

Spanish did nothing?

[@frederickvondinkerberg7721]

The Chinese also stopped inventing things after paper and china tea bowls

[@STho205]

@@patosentado9665 Spain borrowed Portuguese and Italian sailors to get going after 1491. England and Scotland borrowed Dutch design and navigation.

[@overkillphil514]

I just tried Invideo AI with a specific script and instead of using what I wrote, it made up a bunch of other lines all by itself and even repeated itself. Then I told it to remove the generated ad-libs and stick to the script provided. Then it made another video with even more made up parts and changed the original script with alternative adjectives. Very odd.

[@petterlarsson7257]

15:38 we will not have bases on mars.

[@oldspicey6001]

Why not?

[@frogstrfytr]

The Apollo Program might have been at 300.000.000.000 today's USD... yet it was an enormous investment program in innovative techniques and more important: heads. ... yet at the same time, the Vietnam War took at least TWICE AS MUCH! and whom did it serve?

[@CerdurTV]

if you need an AI video bot, then you don't have anything insightful to contribute to society

[@JohnSmith-zw8vp]

I am beyond disappointed that we haven't been back to the moon in over 50 years.

[@gbot9000]

I came here entirely for the comments……

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Looking for moon hoaxers to laugh at?

[@richardbloemenkamp8532]

I did autonomous lunar landings in KSP with a kOS script. Interestingly, 10 times in a row it went perfectly fine. Then the 11th time it landed on the rim of a crater and tipped over. It tells me that you can test successfully many times and still have random failures which is a bit of an issue when there are people in a lander.

[@robsin2810]

Loved the bit at the end… Spending too much money, on how to kill each other. So true.👍🇦🇺🙏

[@sunnyjim1355]

Yes, because if only we'd 'give peace a chance' we'd all live happily ever after. 🙄 Classic liberal delusion based on an utopian fantasy.

[@KYDONSHADOW]

I dont find it all that concerning that the sponsor was for an AI video creator. People are still doing ads for Raid Shadow Legends, and I bet theres a certain number of 0's on a check thatll make anybody advertise anything at least once

[@vilefly]

"How did you land the craft safely and cheaply?" "We dragged an anchor, then landed."

[@David-yo5ws]

Oh aaarrr, so when they land in the 'Mare Crisium' ( Sea of Crises: found to the northeast of Mare Tranquillitatis ), it should be plain sailing for the crew. Hoist the flag and claim the victory. ⚓

[@vilefly]

@@David-yo5wsYa bloody well right!

[@johnmorris7815]

The big problem is that all the landings on the moon during the 60/70’s were manual, an actual pilot used his eyes to determine his position relative to rocks, debris and residual speed. We are so used to the precision afforded us by GPS, unfortunately there is no GPS constellation currently orbiting the moon so it’s down to onboard sensors that really don’t quite get the job done.

[@Hobbes746]

The Ranger and Surveyor landings were unmanned. Half of them failed. The onboard sensors on IM-1 and SLIM were fine. The only problem was dumb mistakes (IM-1: not switching on an important sensor, SLIM: get the fuel-oxidizer mix on the main engines wrong).

[@neogenmatrix6162]

There is a reason behind this because the computer is not good enough to land on the moon a human pilot is 10 times better as they have reactions that surpass computers. That is why every moon landing was perfect or almost perfect. It was not done by computer it was done by hand with a joystick and thruster control. A computer overcompensates where a human would be that's just enough. And vice versa.

[@peterhaan9068]

That's "now" thinking! In a couple of years, once the AI's start designing and building themselves, humans can go back to what they were best at and that is picking small tasty insects off of each others skin!

[@Hobbes746]

Nope. The computers are good enough. IM-1 and SLIM both suffered major hardware failures that would have doomed a manned landing attempt.

[@Ruda-n4h]

Indeed. The computer was ‘blind’ and couldn’t compensate for sudden increases in gravity fields, it could put the lunar module down in a crater or on a steep slope, so the commander always took manual control in the last minute or so to ensure as safe a landing as possible.

[@DavidWright-yu7bi]

If the sponsor is an April Fool gag it's hilarious. If it's not, it's still hilarious.

[@grrlpurpleable]

Thumbs down given purely for the sponsor. Sorry Paul but I can't support the continued intrusion of AI into creative arts. Any other sponsor and I'd have given a thumbs up as usual.

[@A3Kr0n]

The farther you stray from where you should be, the harder it is to get there. Otherwise you would be there already.

[@kenon6968]

it blows my mind that they did all this essentially with slide rules

[@sydtreasure8305]

Marvellous video with an excellent ending. Thankyou so much for your time 😊