Why haven't humans gone back to the Moon? 

If you look closely, to the right of the dog, there's a guy talking to us on the camera.

My favourite line was “a rover won’t complain about being in a small box with no air…” My thought, well neither will a human… I’ll see myself out.

I was a child of Apollo and it was a great adventure, especially for us kids. NASA went all out in selling space to us, including having shows like The Jetsons and Star Trek on prime-time. Even I Dream of Jeannie was space-based. My brother and I were on NASA's kids mailing list and we had a telescope and star charts so we knew knew where to look for stuff. When Apollo 11 touched down everyone, and I mean everyone, watched. I had my little carboard LEM next to me and the whole block cheered out loud when Armstrong announced: "The Eagle has landed!" What a day! I figured by 2000 there would be flying cars, colonies on Mars, and...then the show was over. He's right. If Apollo 13 hadn't drawn people back in 14 just may have been the final trip. At its scientific heart, NASA was never really down with the manned space program. It got them a boatload of money so they pumped it up but the science guys always outnumbered the exploration guys. James Webb was on record as saying the Apollo program wasn't worth it as far as ROI was concerned but Kennedy made it clear to him that outside of going to the Moon he really wasn't that interested in space. There is some evidence Kennedy was ready to ditch the program if he couldn't talk the Soviets into a joint effort. Johnson was more of a space guy than Kennedy. And that's why we don't go back. The explorers lost the internal battle. Nixon threw em a bone with the Shuttle but it really didn't have much of a mission and cost a lot of money. NASA only started talking up Mars again when Elon Musk was making noise about it but I think Elon and NASA are going to realize it's a whole tougher and way more expensive than they think and people these days just aren't into it. Plus, there's no bad guy to race against. If the US had managed to get Alan Sheppard into space first Apollo may never have been a thing. But those damn Soviets, who couldn't build a washing machine or a car worth a damn kept beating us in space. The Bay of Pigs also helped give birth to Apollo. Kennedy needed a win as well as a good distraction and he got both with his Moon shot. Alas, I won't live to see that Martian colony and now that I'm older I thank God flying cars never came about. But I feel for the kids today. We don't dream big dreams anymore and as we have become more interconnected we have lost those competitive juices. Too bad. Live long and prosper gang, just get used to doing it right here on the good Earth.

If a Pokémon card can be worth 5million, a tablespoon of moon dust would be worth 5 billion, sell that table spoon and go back for more

It was 52 years between the first and second manned visits to Challenger Deep (deepest point of the Pacific Ocean). It took 36 years to even send a second unmanned probe.

Another thing is safety. The Apollo missions safety factors were waaaaaaay lower than NASA’s current standards for human-rated flying

A human mars mission could be one and done with a large motivation to be the first. One hundred years after the one and only human Mars mission, people will be asking "Why haven't we been back?"

I really enjoy your content and delivery style. And your furry lap critter too 😂. Thanks for your entertaining and educational vids...keep 'em coming please.

Thank you for addressing the people who straw man the issue as “NASA claims we don’t have the technology anymore.” It’s like claiming cassette tapes are fake because my car stereo doesn’t have a tape deck.

Another often overlooked aspect of the Apollo program was that the space-race was more or less considered a war time expense. The USSR and the USA were basically doing a technological battle to showcase supremacy. That's why at those times there were so many interesting aircrafts entering the stage like the X-15, SR71, XB-70 etc

Found this video by searching that exact question. Reasonable explanation.

Great video as always

Another good analogy is nuclear weapons. They were only used in 1945, and testing has stopped for over 40 years. That doesn't change the fact that the bombs were dropped in Japan, or that nuclear weapons exist.

The immense negative public sentiment when lives are lost is a _huge_ part of why we don't send people anymore, and is not mentioned in the video. I can remember being a kid and all the media attention on Christa McAuliffe being on board the Space Shuttle. I can also remember the horror and after-effects of that explosion being shown all over the nation, live, including in the classrooms of every school that had a TV, in 1986, only to be followed, in 2003, by another shuttle disaster. It shaped people's minds just as surely as 9/11 did, not in the magnitude of how many lives were lost, but in the sheer waste of it for no really good purpose. Not once, but twice.

I have learned so much from your videos! Thank you.

Imagine being a reasonable person talking to a conspiracy dummy: - _If Nasa, with less technology, allegedly went to the Moon in the 60s-70s, and then stopped doing it with more advanced technology at its disposal, that means they never did it._ - _So, what's all the photo and video record of it?_ - _It was all staged in a Hollywood movie set!_ - _So, what you're saying is that, if Nasa, with less technology, was able to stage that in a Hollywood movie set in the 60s-70s, but then stopped staging it with more advanced technology at its disposal, that means they never staged it?_ Makes perfect sense.

Reverse question: why haven’t flerfs gone to the “ice wall”

The fact that people can't (or won't) understand this is almost depressing. Should we have stopped the moon program? Of course not, but politics got involved.

Michael Collins book "Carrying the Fire" explains a bit about testing for radiation with badges placed on rockets in orbit. They sent astronauts on space walks to9 retrieve the badge after certain duration of exposure. One was stuck and it was interesting how he described trying to remove it without it suddenly coming loose and sending him off into space.

Thanks for presenting this very in-depth explanation for something that has stuck in my craw for decades.

I remember reading that 'Moon Dust' was found to be far finer and extremely abrasive, the Moon Dust was even able to penetrate airtight seals. The moon dust got into everywhere & everything, and it was just pure luck that dust didn't course a mission to be scrapped or a life lost.

It's also worth noting that the "Trial by Fire" video was released just before the launch of EFT-1 on the Delta IV Heavy. The Delta IV Heavy was not nearly as powerful as SLS and could not send EFT-1 all the way out to the moon. As a result, the elliptical orbit for EFT-1 had a much lower apogee, and this was used in part to test how Orion would handle lingering in the Van Allen belts for much longer than a normal Artemis mission. Whereas an Artemis mission sends Orion through the belts quickly, Orion lingered in that region of space during its final, elliptical orbit on EFT-1, and it went through some of the most intense parts of the belts. By my calculations using SPENVIS, in a single orbit, EFT-1's final orbit trajectory should have resulted in a hypothetical crew on board receiving roughly half the total dose that would be accumulated over the entire course of the Artemis I mission (which lasted for weeks). And whereas the vast majority of the dose received during an Artemis mission comes from solar radiation beyond the VABs, nearly the whole dose of radiation for EFT-1 came from the VABs because of how its trajectory traveled through them so much slower than on Artemis I.

Great Video! Thank You! 👍

Among many things that make no sense about the "we haven't been back since 1972 because we faked it," argument (if one can call it an argument) is you could just as easily say, "we haven't faked it since 1972 because we never faked it." In fact, you could MORE easily say that since faking it is easier than doing it.

A favorite story: "Buzz" Aldrin finally punched a guy, 1 blow, who was practically spitting in his face and accusing him of being a coward for not admitting the moon landings were faked. Guy had been pestering him for years. In the vid, you can see Mrs. Aldrin rolling her eyes and stepping out of the way. As she said later, "You don't call experimental fighter jet pilots 'cowards' and expect nothing." The YT "journalist" expected a lot of sympathy when he posted the vid, but the Internet community crushed him.

Funding. It's always been funding. Because it stopped being popular and with how expensive it is, congress stopped funding it well enough.

"Why haven't humans gone back to the Moon?" Very simple. We can't afford it, and it would serve no purpose.

I travelled to Rome with my parents back in 1974. I vividly recall being in Varig's 707, the overnight ocean crossing, the landing, and walking away from the airplane toward the terminal, kind of sorry for leaving the 707 behind. And we visited the city, all the landmarks, all the nice places and went on travelling to other places. And then... Almost 50 years passed by. And as it happened, I never returned to Rome. So by flerfers' "logic", I surely have ever been there, or I would have returned.

I love the Van Halen Belts.

They always cherry pick what the NASA engineer said about going through the Van Allen belts. He was specifically talking about testing the new technology for the Orion spacecraft. He is in no way implying that NASA doesn't know the risks of sending humans through the radiation. The Apollo Astronauts were monitored for the amount of radiation exposure. The amount was about the same for a CT scan. They went through the weaker parts of the belts and didn't spend enough time to be exposed to lethal amounts. There were risks to their lives in every mission including the Mercury and Gemini programs. These Astronauts were willing to take these risks.

The only reason people went to the moon in 1969 is that nobody had been there before, now there has to be some scientific or economic reason, which I guess there isn't

The rope-core memory design was super hardened from effects such as the Van Allen Belts. We simply do not make computers this way in 2024.

Flerfs can never comprehend that it wasn’t about NASA’s inability to get back to the Moon, but their decision not to go back.

Concorde is a phenomenal retort 👏🏻

Concord used to fly over my family house when I was a kid pretty regularly. Not very high up either. It was cool to see.

Because after six other visits and billions upon billions of dollars spent to find there's nothing there of value.

Another fun fact about concord, lots of people complained about the extremely loud sound. Setting off car alarms and shaking windows near the air port, and just being extremely loud for the duration of the flight for anyone on ground in the flight path.

9:40 While this is mostly true, one of the Apollo missions did go through the centre of the belts - Apollo 14. The skin radiation dose received was 1.14 rads, compared to 0.18 for Apollo 11. See "Apollo Experience Report - Protection against Radiation" (Nasa Technical Note TN D-7080). Edit: In the same document, it notes that the maximum allowable skin dose was set at 400 rads and that this was at the time an x-ray equivalent. It also states "Radiation doses to Apollo crewmen have been significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the US Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States."

Thx! for pulling me of that fence dave

I'd be amiss if I didn't mention that the animation showing the trans-lunar orbit had the craft orbiting in the wrong direction. Another issue with the "but technology is so much more advanced now" argument, is that it really hasn't when it comes to a major requirement. There are limits to just how efficient a chemical rocket can get, and we are pretty much bumping up against that. While Nuclear powered rockets are much more efficient, they are only useful once you reach Earth orbit, as they just can't produce the thrust needed to lift something into LEO.( And if you could build a nuclear rocket capable of lifting a large payload to LEO, you wouldn't want to be anywhere near it when it took off) And it is getting to LEO where the real heavy lifting is done. Getting from LEO to the Moon is easy in comparison.

The fact the Soviets never raised an objection to the claim that NASA got to the moon speaks volumes to me - not that I ever needed convincing.

On the other hand, we already know exactly why not one Flerf will EVER go to Antarctica...

Omg the USA have been saying we’re going back for years , I will guarantee that no man will ever land on the moon ❤

In the most respectful way I can, I'd like to know how someone who has absolutely nothing to do with our space program would know the answer to this question.

seeing explanations of orbital navigational terms always tickles my fancy after playing a lot of kerbal space program, i'm basically sitting here going "oh I know that one!" there was another one in a different video that mentions orbits high and low points. With a lot of games you could just brute force progression, but (at least without mods) it's extremely difficult to do a lot in ksp without actually taking the time to learn all the terms, maneuvers, and whatnot so you can use the tools the game provides you to get your desired results.

your blissed-out snugglepup really made it for me 💙

Can't go back if you've never been there.

It was a measuring contest with the Soviets that NASA won. USA got bored and stopped

The payload problem is one that would often amuse us in the bar of an evening, back when I worked in aerospace. You put an extra kilogram of mass into your payload, and now you need to add extra fuel /oxidant to get it off the ground, say 10 kilos. Then, you have to put in an extra 100 kilos to lift that extra fuel, and 1000kilo to lift ......... It quickly seems that the rocket can never take off at all. In fact, it was pointed out to me that as it stands on the pad prior to launch, the rocket IS too heavy to lift off. After the rocket engines ignite, & as they are building up to full thrust, they are burning off fuel & mass, so that as they come up to full power, the take off weight is just down to match the thrust available from the engines. So that the rocket doesn't go off in an unstable state [ see early film of rocket trials ], there are actually arms that hold the rocket down until the correct moment. You can her this in the launch countdown, as " engines start " at approx t -8s, before " lift off" at t-0.

Not returning to the moon is something I’ve always considered to be a bit of a national disgrace really. If we continued, it would be quite a common thing for humans to be living on the moon at least that we know of, for we all we know humans are living on the moon but of course it was never revealed to the public - Listening to Dr. Steven Greer really brings.more insight to this, quite fascinating.

"We lost the technology, and its a painful process to build it back" Don Pettit.

You can tell you are a camera guy and not a physics/space guy because you messed up weight and mass in the video. It doesn't change the meaning, and only the most obtuse people will hold the minor mistake against you, but every time you said weight, you really meant mass. Weight is the pull of gravity an object feels from its parent body, while mass is the amount of matter. On Earth unless you are being super precise they are perfectly equivalent, but once you start modifying things like the distance between the two bodies significantly or changing the parent body the difference matters a lot. Again the video is essentially correct if you replace weight with mass every time you say weight.

Give them 50 valid arguements and they'll go "nah, it's all fake, you're a CGI chill".

"a rover won't complain about being packed into a box with no air supply" To be fair neither will the astronauts... At least not for long anyway

I always thought they hadn't been back because when the last crew returned to their rover the hub caps had been stolen...

"does it mean that concord was faked?" and a new conspiracy is born! ;)

Another factor that was not mentioned here that makes the cost of going to the moon even higher in comparison to a rover, is that humans usually would appreciate being brought back to earth after getting on the moon. Which means you now need additional thrusters, fuel and equipment to perform the return flight. For example, once they arrived in orbit of the moon, the lunar module would seperate from the command module orbiting the moon to bring 2 people down. This lander had 2 stages. A descent stage, which contained thrusters and fuel to slow down the spacecraft and land safely, and an ascent stage which also had its own fuel and thruster, and container the crew compartment. When the astronauts were ready to leave, the lunar model ascent stage would detach from the lunar descent stage, in order to leave its trusters and empty fuel tanks. That stage was now useless once they landed so bringing it back would only mean having to carry even more fuel and thrusters to lift that extra weight back up. Alot of the equipment the astronauts brought down was also left behind in order to shave off as much weight as possible, such as the lunar rover, the cameras and other stuff. Only the stuff we wanted to bring back, such as pictures and moon rocks were kept onboard. Once back in orbit, the lander’s ascent stage then met back with the orbiting command module, onboard which a 3rd astronaut stayed. The appollo missions were a 3 crew mission, with only 2 actually landing, and 1 staying in orbit onboard the command module. The 2 modules then connected back to eachother and the two astronauts who landed on the moon got back onboard the command module. And then, finally, the lunar lander ascent module was then ditched, left into the moon’s orbit. The command module then would return to earth with the crew, and other stuff collected on the moon, such as the moon rocks, which also were transfered onboard the command module before ditching the lander. If we were to bring every stage back, we would need ALOT more thrust.

Wow that was the best explanation ive heard about this.. Probably one of my biggest questions about that cknspiracy..

When they ask me why we've never been back. I reply with.... WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? WE'VE BEEN THERE 6 TIMES !!!

In the '60s, I went to Mexico a lot. My Texas grandparents liked traveling in Mexico, and so we went fairly often. But by the early '70s, my grandparents were taking fewer long car trips, so my last trip to Mexico c. 1972 was by plane. In the last 50 years, I never went back to Mexico. The reasons for not going back (or lack of reasons for going) are many. It was my grandparents' thing, and when they got old and died, the motivation to go with them was gone. Also, there were other places to explore that I hadn't been to yet. But hey, it could be that Mexico is just fake...

Great video. Dave McKeegan is one smart dude with truck loads of common sense. Pretty impressive.

I keep coming back. I wondered about this too, and for some reason decided to check other "new world" settlements. The time between Columbus and the first settlement in N. America -- Roanoke -- is about 50 years. The time between Armstrong and Artemis is about 55 years. We're on schedule.

Saw a thing where modern engineers were subject to Mercury and Saturn rocket engines and were quick to say they understood the design but that we simply don't build rockets like that anymore. Which makes sense. Bottom line its not that we "can't" build Saturn V, its that its obsolete. Similarly with, say, the F-14 Tomcat.

One of the main reasons we stopped going was the interest in going waned. The space race was over for now, so why continue? However, now that the Chinese have shown interest in setting up a base on the Moon, we have to do it before they do. It's all politics. One big difference now is that we have private interests involved that will lower the cost of research and development for NASA. SpaceX and others will be involved in new projects to the Moon and Mars and will be looking to make a profit where NASA isn't. This may drive interest from the public as it may be possible for anyone with money to go into space.

Are you using the front camera on your phone? Is your dog sitting on the other side than all the other vids I saw ( haven't seen enough to learn their name)? Your dog and my cat...hand seekers.

Politics is the answer. Man's greatest achievement, left behind

Oh dear, you are getting hooked into arguing with the least educated, silliest people in our community. My wife reckons it’s about as useful as standing at the barn door arguing with the goats about quantum mechanics. But there is the entertainment value! Go Flatzoid for 2023 Top Left award!

A perfectly rational and logical explanation. Which is completely wasted on conspiracy nuts who don't operate rationally and logically.

Right…because if our government is known for nothing else, it’s fiscal discipline

That dog tho! I bet he likes these videos!! He's gorgeous

When was the last person in the Mariana Trench? Oh wait, the seabed is fake to...

People tend to over exaggerated the story especially in this modern era of science influencers where people basically idolize science. The simple story is just the space race was a dick measuring contest with the Russians and when the USSR fell the game was over. Who else were we racing? And we'd already been to the moon so why keep going? The other major contributer is that the space program was rather unpopular following the first landing. The first landing was well supported by citizens, but following that many claimed it was a gross waste of federal taxes. Hell today people still look for any ways possible to reduce taxes and the space program was taking that money and throwing it away. It was the easiest program to cut funding from especially now that the original goal was accomplished already.

there still is 1 saturn v at nasa in Houston, but it's been decommissioned. it's kept in a huuuuuuuge warehouse. it's crazy how large that rocket is. they let people in to see it, and you get to read about every apollo mission and also how the rocket was built and how it works. they also explain the artemis mission as well. they have other rockets too, including a spaceX rocket that was actually out in space and came back. living near Houston is so cool because of nasa tbh. if you ever get the chance, you gotta check it out.

2:09 concord was also extremly loud and wasnt plesent for the people below in the cities, I believe theres a law that prevents super sonic aircraft use above land anyway

Gotta love space deniers. “We’ve never been back to the moon, so we probably never went there”. Well, in the early 80’s I went to France and I’ve never been back so France doesn’t exist or I never went there???

20 years ago I did a nice trip to Italy. But never got back. I guess it means I never went in the first place.

1. Dangerous 2. Expensive 3. Pointless Is that approximately how this video goes?

When someone asks me why we haven't been back to the moon, I like to quote the line from The Right Stuff, "no bucks, no Buck Rogers."

Flat earth 5G chemtrail 9/11 lizard people believers after watching this video: “gasp… the Concorde jet was also fake”

Thank you Dave. I always asked that question about why we dont have regularly humans on travels to the moon nowadays since its been like 60 plus years. But I never researched with dedication on that subject, as that idea just came about when I was talking with friends around. You actually explained that i a reasonably way. Btw, good analogy bringing the Concord's case. Now I can also explain this to family and friends when this topic come up. Thank you .

Missed opportunity. Should totally have said the new car would be yeeted into a wall. That would have been funny.

Plus the Russians had MASSIVE problems with the N1/L3 rocket they were going to use for the Lunar missions... It KEPT blowing up on launch... 😎🇬🇧

A huge cost saver for unmanned programs is you don't need to plan for a return trip. Or if you are planning on returning some samples, it can be a tiny package, and isn't going to be nearly as big a deal if it doesn't make it back as a manned trip would be.

The best full explanation I’ve seen on this. Hope the FE community take the time to listen, though I’d be *very* interested in hearing rebuttals to it (but only if they were presented as cogently as this).

4:10 As it turns out, humans also don't complain when packed into a tiny room with no air supply!

Very interesting!

I sometimes get sad that I live in a world where these things not only need to be explained to people, but also people argue against it.

No scientific reason. No military reason. No social benefit reason. No profit reason. None that is worth 10s of $billions.

The other thing about conspiracy theorists asking this question is that if it was all faked and NASA and co. have continued to safeguard their secret all these years, wouldn’t they just knock up another fake when people started asking “why haven’t you been back?”

It baffles the mind that ANYONE would not understand the logic behind not going back b4 we were ready to go in the optics of putting a permanent base up there. Yours is the most complete and intelligent explanation I have seen! Kudos for an incredible job!!! 🤘😎

If you’re interested in the Apollo missions, the U.S Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama has an actual Saturn V rocket suspended from (mounted to?) the ceiling in the main exhibit hall. It’s one of of three Saturn V’s left in the world.

I don't have anything to add but I wanted to leave a comment. This video was awesome 😁 🌙

3:00 And... now I want to play Kerbal Space Program.

I've never met a Moon landing denier that claimed that the Van Allen belts would be an issue that could say what the three types of radiation collected in the outer Van Allen belt are and what would be required to shield against it. Most aren't even aware that there's more than one type of ionizing radiation. Spoiler alert: the three predominant types of radiation collected in the outer Van Allen belt range from one type that can't even penetrate human skin to one that is adequately shielded against by a quarter inch of plastic. Yes, there are types of ionizing radiation that require heavier shielding, but because they're non-charged, the Earth's magnetic field can't collect them into the Van Allen belts. An additional note on testing the Orion capsule: OSEA regulations limiting radiation exposure in a work environment weren't an issue during Apollo, but they are now, so doing a little due diligence is a good idea.

Mankind's incredible achievements in space travel should be celebrated. I just don't get the appeal of the conspiracy mindset where we haven't really achieved anything. It's just a terribly paranoid way of thinking

Dave would you please stop talking common sense as it puts a dent into peoples conspires, oh by the way the earth is flat while every other planet we see is basically round

Very interesting...I was just asking this question yesterday, and boom youtube suggests this. 😅

Most people don't realise that the S-4B, the upper stage of the rocket that contained the LM and was attached to the Service Module, weighed 147 tons. That is a lot of weight to get into orbit.

"A rover won't complain about being in a small box without air..." is an excellent point. I'd just add that folks don't think it immoral to NOT provide a way for the rover to come back. Two-way trips take a lot more than one-way.

Great analogies.