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.
@@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.
@@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.
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! .
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.
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.
@@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
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 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.)
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.
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.
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.
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!
...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
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 !
@@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...
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 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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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
If you’re doubtful it’s probably because you don’t know what you’re talking about, just like the guy that made the video. The fact that the Soviets didn’t call bullshit is a big clue. The fact that universities and civilians all over the world followed the missions by radio and telescope are another. The pictures of the landing sites taken by the LRO are another…
@@UpperDarbyDetailing it was faked. The fact that the technology to go to the moon was lost is a big clue. It's you that is confused. Someday, you will be on the stupid side of history, if not already. Oh, BTW, saying the mission was followed by radio is literally the dumbest $hit ever. Any credibility you had just went limp. And guess what buddy, the Russians did call bull$hit, and still do. Did you know that since 2010 there has only been 8 attempts to land on the moon? 4 of these were unsuccessful. Here's the kick in the nuts boy, none of these missions were too return to earth. Why? Because they can't.
@@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.
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 😂
First, there’s two belts, at the time there was three. The Van Allen Belts are arranged in a doughnut shape, so they just plotted a route that would take them through as quickly as possible. They also used radiation shielding, and the belts simply aren’t that dangerous. It’d be bad to STAY there, but a few hours is essentially nothing.
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
From what my uncle told me, whom I might add was an Air Force veteran, he said landing on the moon is NOT as easy you think. The electro magnetic field around the moon makes logistics insane. "I think it was designed that way but that's a whole different beast," he said and its better NOT to ask. One thing though the Apollo missions don't get the credit they deserve because those were a logistical nightmare. Props to the original Apollo missions, their crews were basically told, "we need you to land on a the head of a pin blindfolded and navigating with your tongue to get it the Lunar lander to land on a spec of dust!" It's not as easy as it sounds. RIP Uncle Miquel, I miss your stories tio.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
The Russians were first at everything *but* putting the first person on the moon. They won the space race hands down in my book, they did all the important stuff first.
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 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. 😄
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes we have a very serious problem...it's the fact that there's still supposedly fully grown functioning adults that think the Universal Studios Orlando footage was a moon "landing" 😂🤣😅🤦
Only idiots think there wasn’t a landing. Explain all of the people that listened to the mission on HAM radios? The Soviets agreeing that we did it? All of the observations that watched it by telescope? The thousands of images, including recent ones of the landing site?
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
Wrong on the Ranger missions. They weren't designed to soft land on the moon. Ranger was designed to take pictures from about 1000 miles out until just before crashing into the Moon. Surveyor was the first design by NASA to soft land on the Moon. The third set of robotic probes was Lunar Orbiter and they were sent into orbit around the Moon to take pictures to make the first 3 dimensional maps of the Moon as a guide for the Apollo astronauts!
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
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.
They eliminated Kenny because they didn't want to admit they couldn't land on the moon and come back, exposing Majestic Twelve Alien recovered Technology
"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?
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.
@@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!
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
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
We need to drill straight down when we get to the moon again. There's a theory that the moon is hollow and made out of a very hard metal impervious to asteroid impacts. The idea is, there's a couple kilometers worth of dust, then just a metal sphere. If you notice, no matter the diameter of the impact, the craters are all the same depth.
Lunar craters are not all of the same depth. Their depths vary, roughly in proportion to their diameters To cite a few examples: Tycho is 85 kilometers wide and 4800 meters deep. Aristarchus is 41 km wide, 3000 meters deep. Picard is 23 km wide and 2400 meters deep
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
There’s a whole lot of families eating today because their parents work in aerospace. We’re not just burning cash to power the rockets, it’s pumped back into the economy. Also, do you have any idea how much mineral wealth is in space? Literally quadrillions of dollars.
Proximity sensors, radar, automated engine firing, etc should make this a walk in the park Are they using any of this technology or doing it manually? Makes one wonder
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.
Not watching, just wanted to point out we have things like the news, telescopes, governments, doctors, scientists, biologists, mineralogists and countless others. What have you got a camera and script?
STARFIELD SPOILERS!!! Me: (Reading the comments without watching the video) "Gravitational anomalies you say? Sounds like Bethesda might know something..."
Actually, earth has several gravity anomalies. There are many hills and mountains, where a ball will not roll downhill, but it will roll uphill. A car going downhill has to accelerate all going uphill. You don’t need to touch the gas pedal at all. In addition, there’s a huge gravity anomaly in the Indian Ocean.
4:06 Landing on the moon and sucks all the smoke. :D I know. Not funny. Kind of cool editing. No waste. No pollution. I like that. Human landings can't be eliminated because of humans by beloved aliens. No manned spacehips can be destroyed by them easily. Question: If they had 30 seconds of fuel left in the lunar module, how did it suffice to get back to the "mother ship"? Liked and subbed. Thank You!
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.
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! 👋