The Key To NASA's Moon Landing 

Better than Rocket is here Easy lift off Easy land on with antigravity Spaceship No Fire No Explosion No Flame Just Spin and Lift off Powered by Baterry Work base on Gravity just spinning by using Battery can fly in bad weather, plunge in the ocean even in outer space Can lift more than 100 Ton Earth which weight predict 600 trillion ton does not fall at the Sun because of centrifugal in orbitting, on the contrary it does not be thrown far go out the orbit line of hold by gravity at the Sun as orbit center. Gravity and centrifugal is equal called Equillibrium, thats why until now Earth which we was inhabited always rotate and circulate the Sun. Now we justly take example : how if the gravity used and centrifugal is negated? The Earth will float far leave the Sun. So that centrifugal can be used to fly far away if gravity eliminated. Finally how to eliminate gravity? It’s way rotate part of aircraft by horizontal. When that rotation faster centrifugal force getting greater and the gravity getting smaller, finally it lose the gravity and the aircraft start flying. Of course people would surprise: how the aircraft can keep rotate without fulcrums? Thats why we named that aircraft Shuttling System that is aircraft likes two disc adjoining attached in the midle as fulcrums: A. The Top part, we name Positive rotate to right, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. B. The Buttom part, we name Negative rotating to left, and the edges is getting thicker and havier. C. Middle Part , we name Neutral, air crew placed and also machine and everythings turning Negative and Positive at the same time. The aircraft can liftup added with explosion from the engine. However that aircraft construction later, let the engineer doit it, and we are sure the aircraft will bulletproof and also waterproof. . . In modern civilization where human being generally using flying saucer as vehicle, will a lot of change in lives either in materialism and in psychological. In materialism area will apply the change in life like. People no longger need roadway and rel road which spend large of energy, money, places, things and time, object place and time. People would utilize that area for habitat or for other need:

How does a Falcon 9 launch a moon lander?

May the Fouth be with you!

@@Freakcent 😂

Fuhst mission, theud mission, fouth mission

Feyd mission. Probably Rautha.

The FAA only regulates the private sector, not NASA.

@@ApolloKid1961 SpaceX Fanboys are blind ...

@@ApolloKid1961 Yea, go ask NASA to build a rocket by themselves

Lol

@@mikami5799 NASA itself is not a manufacturer but outsources the construction of rockets to commercial partners such as Boeing and SpaceX. SpaceX also has its own program. This is monitored by the FAA. Artemis is a project of NASA itself but the parts are made by contractors such as Lockheed Martin (Command Module), ESA (Service Module) and Rocketdyne (RS-25 engines).

No it happened way earlier than it should've and was completely unnecessary post the Moon Landing. So much other stuff was going on that required more attention and we didn't have the proper ability to sustain a Lunar program in terms of technology, money, and knowledge back then.

We should have never faked the moon landings to beat the soviets only on the minds of the people. That was a propaganda race instead of a space race, a technology race. The longest the lie is maintained, the hardest will be accept the truth.

the fact that we haven't even seen a crewed Artemis launch is like crazy imagine that the scientist's grandparents beat them to the moon with lesser resources and potato pcs and these guys are crying about saying their launchpad wont be ready until 2027.

@@waspsandwich6548 yeah the lunar landings were just short trips of research and collecting samples before the soviets did. Artemis intends to make moon a permanent settlement but even with nowadays technology they have still failed in adhering to their timeline. i wouldn't be surprised if space x gets there before the Artemis considering their launchpad wont be ready until 2027.

@@skgamer-zs6en It's because they don't even have a tenth of the same budget as they did during the Apollo program

Typical SpaceX Fanboy

The USA allegedly land on the moon six times between 69-72. The microprocessor had not even been imagined until the 70s. A moon landing for modern countries should be a walk in the park. Why hasn't anyone done it lately?

Yes, let's go back to the moon, this time for real !!!!!

⁠​⁠@@jeffhatmaker817cuz Apollo was a dangerous, over budget, useless program that has a 10% chance of ending in failure. With Artemis, safety is the main priority, unlike Apollo where we basically threw stuff at the wall until it stuck. So unlike Apollo, we’re actually taking our time with safety and not doing it for prestige.

FAA...."Hold my beer"

Me

watch the expanse show thats the future if we dont blow ourselfs up

Good luck

Shut up kid

Nope.

LM

If Ford were to reintroduce the Model T, would you drive one more now or would you still prefer a Tesla?

With the current budget it will be postponed at most a few times. If you cancel it then all is lost and that seems to me a bad plan. Look at it positively.

Project Apollo involved 400,000 people working at major contractors such as Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, Rocketdyne, Grumman Aircraft Corporation, IBM, Motorola, MIT University and 20,000 other subcontractors. So nothing new here.

We went to the moon a century ago but we don't go there anymore because it's too expensive (2069).

The energy in those particles is a TINY fraction of that in the photons from the Sun, so there's no point.

The FAA has no authority over NASA.

Moon suit

probably a stolen Apollo space suit ?...

There have actually been 12 people on the moon.

Sigh

Lunar storms? There is no atmosphere there!

We don't have Saturn 5 anymore and Artemis isn't ready yet. There have never been moon bases.

But why 6 times the same movie?

Don’t need it, it’s outdated and unsafe so we replaced it with better technology

@@Quenical better technology well the Boeing starliner barely managed to get itself into space how the heck will they even manage to get people to the moon and back in one piece.

@@skgamer-zs6en Precisely because new technology is used, it has to be tested and then things can go wrong. Manned space travel is still dangerous and very expensive.

@@skgamer-zs6en Firstly, Boeing doesn’t speak for the entire space industry. And secondly, Apollo was an unsafe, over budget hunk of garbage of a program that had a 10% chance of failure in each mission and it’s honestly a miracle Apollo 13 was the worst we got (huh, a lot like Boeing, eh?). We’re simply developing safer and more reliable technology that won’t get the astronauts killed.

@@Quenical isnt Boeing tied up with Artemis program to provide the SLS so technically moon mission in most of the part is dependent on Boeing. space x's starship is stuck due to all the paper work and even after that i doubt elon will give up his craze on going to mars.

Apollo 11 landed on the moon, as did Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.

@@ApolloKid1961 of course; I wasn't denying that. But the Artemis program is vastly more ambitious (and difficult), making their timeline ridiculously optimistic.

@@michaelnoble2432 What is most ridiculous is their budget.

@@ApolloKid1961not sure if you think the Artemis budget is high or low? Adjusted for inflation, it's WAY less than the Apollo program (which at its peak employed around 400,000 Americans).

@@michaelnoble2432 Converted to today, the costs for project Apollo were 341 billion dollars. Artemis only gets 93 billion which forces them to use upgraded Space Shuttle parts for the SLS.

Hi Jeb

@@MixelFan95 what’s up

They have been there 6 times for real.

You 1st at being second 🥈

Luckily, we needn't "imgaine" any such thing, since no technology, nor the know-how behind it was ever lost.

2 tapes were overwritten and now all of a sudden all the technology is gone. Talk about taking things out of context.

@@ApolloKid1961 and there are backups of what was on there. Not to mention the erased over tapes were from _one mission_ (11). All of the tapes for Apollos 12-17 are intact.

@@thewildcellist That's right. The Slow-Scan TV images that came directly from the moon were recorded on Ampex tapes and also converted to NTSC after which those images were sent to the US. Ampex tapes were very expensive at the time and the images had also been recorded in the US, so they didn't see the problem in overwriting them. The same applied to the telemetry. This was mainly used for evaluation.

Still, they couldn't do it without the AGC.

@@ApolloKid1961 I wonder about that? Maybe it would have been a bit more problematic and yes, even when Neil Armstrong decided to change the landing spot, the onboard computer made the real adjustments with his input. I remember watching that live on TV back in the 60’s.

Kubrick was a filmmaker, not a director of live broadcasts. The FIRST moon landing was watched LIVE by 500 to 600 million people WORLDWIDE! There were SIX moon landings. You didn't know that, did you.

Says the guy that still believes the moon is made of cheese.

They have been there 6 times.

@@arthurmiller-vl6sw well not everyone believe blindly what ever US government tells their people. There was no internet, no social contacts or opportunities that people has today to fact check everything, so governments could tell anything with the "first" moon landing and people believed in them. Don't be a sheep... use you own brains... not what I say or anyone else... if US did the moon landing in 1969, how come they still have problems in 2024. That is 55 years of technology.... the computer they used back then were less powerful than my cellphone today... How come the astronauts with their less information back then could pass Van Allen Belts twice without any harm, but after 55 years of technological advances they have problem with the Van Allen Belts radiation? And you saying that I think the moon is made out of cheese? Relly? Wow... American education system.... huh...

Why would science fake itself? That doesn't serve anyone.

Do you feel special when you say this?

Thanks for including the laugh-crying emoji. They always give a bit of extra cred to denier comments; they're just not the same without them (though more emojis would've been better).

I feel secondhand embarrassment