Why is it so hard to return to the moon? 

This

It’s by design. It’s a lot easier to control scared and stupid people.

Read any current issue of Scientific American and compare them to articles written in the 1940’s: analytical, comprehensive, efficient is expressing complex concepts. Even the ads back then make you realize they were operating on a much higher plain and not treating the reader like a child with zero attention span. Although, that last part should be especially earmarked to the American news/entertainment infintalization complex.

Operating on a higher plane. I know. I went to public school as well.

​@@johnlaughlin266 Infantilization, yes.

funny they have AI narrate videos now, but cant go back to the moon because "it's too expensive" even though they spend way more on funding wars in ukraine and Israel

@@randuthaynelol would you go back to where there no treasures? Only lunar rocks 😂

​@@pasonveronica2370 . . if you can show up the first time without being caught spreading petrified wood afterward as the genuine article . . Interesting that recent returns from the Chinese unmanned lunar mission contained rocks having an entirely different ratio of minerals not remotely matching any of the material from Apollo missions . . No 60 minutes quest is forthcoming however -- let alone network news coverage in fake journalistic enterprise beyond celebrity gossip.

@@pasonveronica2370only reason we really need to go back is for the alleged abundance of helium-3 which would make a more efficient fuel for further exploration and possibly manned missions to the outer worlds.

@@randuthayne the bit, explanes the fir go at anything, it unknown, some times you nee to actuly build tooling needed to, to even make the machine you want to make, NASA it's self, big tool needed for task,, well doing, it second or third time? almost everything, from the first go? so costs sould go down, second third fourth, and soon on,

Yes of course . They couldn't go in 60s or since then . 😊

The hard part is prying the funding out of Congress. They'd rather pay to house all these newly-arrived Democrat voters in hotels than fund science.

@@marksprague1280 You can't cut taxes and increase the budget.

@marksprague1280 The space race and the Cold War were both imaginary money pits. Because they were imaginary, the government was able to cut taxes for the rich. Space telescopes and landing on asteroids and comets, that's real science. You should be happy that we do any science.

@@rawmilkmike When has of the KluKKer party ever actually cut taxes?

we miss Stanley Kubrik!

​@@Ezekiel903he made it look so easy

Stanley Kubrick...🤔 I wondered myself if that Women have their grubby Spider Fingers in our Pie?

I mean I cannot even make the Short Symbol of a Spider.

Me too.

I made a similar comment yesterday, came back to see responses to my post and found my post had been deleted. :O

We had Vietnam war going on ?

@@indianastan Yes if something has a political motivation there is plenty of money but science or long term human interest does not

Sickening. Isn't it??

Ukraine is a pressing issue of the future world our children inherit. Will it be a world based in logical rule of law, or a world in which it is ok to murder people just to steal their shit. Authoritarian governments are the default animal state but reflect all of mans failings whereas democracy represents a higher ideal which is very hard to hold together always in jeopardy of the tyranny of the many, or the tyranny of the few. Hold foremost in your heart the better angels of your human nature for the sake of our collective future, and be willing to defend them when they are under direct violent assault or we shall perish and enslaved, and miserable species.

🤡👀yeah and in real time too! 🖖

That 'land line phone' was patched through a radio transceiver so...Nope. Try again.

@diverdannavyvet9672 Baaaa, none of it ever happened, it's all bs. Try again 😂👍

​​​@@dpackman How did all of the things that went to the moon and are still there get there ? Santa ? .. Try again.. Sorry, no cute cartoons to punctuate my posting..

@@richardlincoln8438 nothing up there, none of it ever happened. Have a great day 👍

It's not hard to fool us, it's hard to convince a portion of the population. People now don't believe anything from authority. With all the evidence available some people would die before admitting the earth is a sphere. Bizzare times we live in.

That's arguable, I mean we are talking about one of the greatest achievements in history motivated by one of the greatest superpower schlong measuring contests in human existence.

There are many ways of destroying ourselves. The cost of preventing that from happening costs even more, and going back to the moon is one way of preventing our self destruction.

Ironically, we ride to space on technology developed originally to kill people, but yeah, I'm with you.😊

To be fair. Without war we would likely not have rockets...

Considering that military spending is 800+ billion and that went to NASA instead, then yes we would be on Mars in no time.

Yes. In fact multiple launch scenarios were considered during the design phase of the 1960's lunar mission development including a number of varying types of multi launch plans. In that same spirit there were ideas to mount the command module to a lander base and take all the hardware to the surface. Many designs and plans were considered.

IT NEVER HAPPENED Have you ever seen the documentary A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON? Or ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD?

​@@kbotah2023pseudo science that has been debunked long ago

@@kbotah2023 IT DID HAPPENED Have you ever seen the documentary A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON DEBUNK ?

I still can't believe smart people think they landed humans 6 times on the moon with less than the technology of a first generation Nokia phone and here we are in 2024 and they can't even land a robot on the moon without it falling over. It just amazes me that people still believe we went to the moon back in the 1960's and 1970's and even took rover buggies with them. Who in their right mind would believe that shlt these days.

NASA's funding for 2024 is $25billion, the US military budget for 2024 is $842billion. It's strange so many people criticise the funding NASA get but are fine with the Military budget, or even go as far as saying NASA is just a scam to steal the funding they get when NASA is a division of the US Government which has a total yearly budget of over $6trillion, so either NASA has the government which they are a part of fooled and are stealing their funding without anyone else in the government figuring out it's a scam, or the US government is in on the scam, when the US government could steal a measly $25billion from taxpayers without even needing any story or scam to cover it, it's peanuts.

#5 is not correct.

Most people know nothing of the Saturn V.

Wouldn’t want anyone these days to prove they actually faked it, so you know, lose that important data asap.

@@Samuelfish2k its bit like unrelated buildings collapsing on 9-11 full of computers and paperwork. Its a sad fact of life that Goverments lie to us every single day.

@@Samuelfish2k If you actually think they 'faked' it....I challenge you to go to Florida and look at the Saturn V they have laying on its' side and tell me it's not real. And often times there will be people there who worked on the Apollo project who will be happy to answer any questions you might have. But you won't do that because you'd rather live with your delusions than find out the truth. If you actually look...you can find blueprints, specifications, test procedures and results from every single part in that spacecraft....of which there are millions. All faked...of course. Once you see the mountain of documentation it should start to dawn on you that it was real.

@@Samuelfish2kThey lost the telemetry tapes for ONE mission only. You can find the Apollo 15 telemetry data online. So, that’s a very poor excuse.

@@TheSteveSteele they lost them all.

You bet. 😊

He did make a good movie.

Google fact check says that we succeeded, so you know its 100% propaganda.

Really? Kubrick insisted on doing the shooting on location!

AVATAR's makers have been taking NASA way beyond the moon.

Contrary to your claims, there were nine missions to the moon and six landings. Hope this helps!

I think the details are in the language being used. “Starship” is the upper stage of the fully stacked rocket. So Starship (or “SS”) sits atop the SuperHeavy rocket (or “SH”). So SH can get SS to NEO. Apparently SS can’t propel itself to the moon directly afterwards because of its incredible size. Remember it can accommodate 100 people or 100 tons…something like that. I think 100 people require a great deal of heavy life support equipment and materials, supplies, food etc. Ok. Now we have big old SS up in orbit. So it has equipment for the moon. But it needs more fuel that couldn’t come along for the ride in addition with the moon equipment. So that may be why another 15 or so SS fuel tanker launches are needed in order to add enough fuel to send SS to the moon. I never understood any of this until thinking it through in the writing of this post. Please let me know if I’m not correct; I’m happy to edit it if I’m wrong…I just want to fully understand the problem that we have in terms of why SS can’t just be launched and fly to the moon in one shot.

The Super heavy block-one version presently generates 74.4 MN (16.7 million lbf) thrust. While Saturn IV generated 34.5 million newtons (7.6 million pounds). More than double. SH is 71 m (233 ft) tall, while Starship is 50.3 m (165 ft). Saturn 5 was 110.6 m (363 ft) tall. So 35' taller than Saturn V. Starship block-2 will have stretched tanks in both booster and second stage, with 35 Raptors in SH, 6 sea-level and 3 vacuum Raptors in Starship. This should increase real payload capacity from 45 mt [presently] up to 110 mt (242550 lb). Block-2 is going to be used for the HLS contract unless block-3 arrives sooner than expected.

​@@imconsequetau5275Dude, you got your data on the Starship Blk 2 backwards: It's going to have 6 vacuum engines and 3 sea level engines. As for the actual moon lander, that's going to need an almost entirely different engine configuration altogether because the moon has no atmosphere and a loose, rocky surface - no hardened landing pads there yet.

@@Bobcat665 Of course we know that Starship HLS is going to have high-mounted landing engines. Where did you find definitive specs on block-2 ? I couldn't just trust any artist's depictions, so I concluded practically that SpaceX wouldn't risk the additional cost of 3 more vacuum Raptors until the recovery rate exceeded 85%, or 7 recovered Starships. The tanker versions could easily exceed 3 gravity but you also want to rapidly accumulate a lot of experience with human rated designs. So, using 3, 4, or 6 vacuum Raptors for tankers will depend on how much you are going to allow acceleration to exceed 3 gravity, and also on gravity drag equations. As the ship weight drops from ~2100 mt down to ~200 mt, you shut off all but one sea level engine in stages and then throttle down and shutoff pairs of vacuum Raptors to stay within load spec. The vacuum bell mass of shut-down engines, and how long they are dead weight, are factors.

@@Bobcat665 Of course we know that Starship HLS is going to have high-level landing engines. What's your source on block-2 vacuum engines? Artist depictions?

Exactly, no one survived Apollo 6.

Did he mean Gemini 6?

I'm not familiar with this channel. Does this guy slap them together fast?

@@Three_Random_Words Sure as hell drags it out ,,, He needs to speed it up 5X at least OR have two channels, one for those that maybe finished Junior School and another for those that read at least one of the many Volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica.

​@@TagiukGold 🤔 Which part of "uncrewed" didn't you understand? Apollo 6 had no crew. It was an uncrewed or unmanned mission. The only Apollo mission in which "no one survived" was Apollo 1.

😢Univac was a tech leader but laid off the engineers that kept it all running.

​@@chuckevans2792 Very much like Boeing being an industry leader until the merger and they replaced the engineering staff with accountants.

Yeah, instead of buying a Mustang, I asked Ford for a new Model A. They couldn’t do it. Some here would say that was evidence that the Model A never existed.

I get your message but in this case there was absolutely no squirrel or recipe for space blue ribbons simply because they were not able to get to the moon but we're actually perpetrating the vinacular w slow motion technology... Yes no technology for none needed..pick any moonwalk sir and go to speed settings,2xfast is real time and there's nothing else to say about it, but it's the truth...no cap , no way ,ck my ch.🤔

Why can't you travel in a vacuum?

No one ever went beyond low earth orbit.

vietnam war is still ongoing? wow didn't know.

they are running on nuclear batteries, why dont we have nuclear batteries in EVs?

​@@oojimmyflipWe have schools turning out psychopaths, and imported half of the Venezuela prison population?

🎉Kudos to your Dad, Voyager was so exciting for me!

It's only harder because they're doing it with 2.5% of the budget they used to go the first time. NASA doesn't build anything, it's all government contracts. Hard to get things built when you can't afford to pay anybody but the lowest bidder. This is why SLS is derivative of the shuttle rocket and Orion is a jazzed up Apollo era capsule.

Why?

We’ve never been before 😂😂

Except that we already beat them to the moon...in 1969.

ChangE project has been doing almost all experiments for mankind moon landing since 2013 while Artemis doing almost nothing so far.

NASA's entire annual budget is less than 0.3% of the overall U.S. budget. So, the U.S. is already spending 99.7 cents out of every dollar on infrastructure, food, housing, medicine, and self defense. The U.S. spends more in 2 weeks on defense spending than they do on all of NASA for the entire year. Not to mention the $1.2 trillion infrastructure spending bill that was passed under the current administration.

@tepatrilee3009 ...and trillions on arming Iran, Iraq and other enemy states. And other useless crap. And still, people are starving and homeless....

1 war costs more than all of nasa ever

😆 Yup! 🚀 hellywood basement🏁🤺 ya know the tune..💰.. *follow*

hit 2x speed settings ​@@amarshmuseconcepta6197moon walks😂

Ckmy ch

Alridn dropped a feather and a hammer at the same time and landed together

@@jackietreehorn5561 😆"Hey Jackie how's the *Dude* still alive I've heard but dodging the hellywood 🎥film *sett* 😈🏁🤺 🎬👎

cuz F1 never existed lol

@@Zorro33313 What makes you think that?

​@mikepennington8088 because a million people in person watching a Saturn V go to the moon never existed in the deluded minds of two-bit trolls

@@captlazer5509 wut. noone's been watching Satrun V go to the moon lol. "in person" lmao

@@mikepennington8088 "Occam's razor" principle, "burden of proof" principle, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" principle.

Oh and also we as a government couldn’t blow Elon Musk if we built our own rockets.

Will watch out for your video explaining why.

@@MisterHowzat I guess he meant if you never were there you can not 'Go back'

@@hansjorgkunde3772 Yes, I'm certain that was the meaning. But I want to see his presentation explaining why he says so.

yup. The fact you're not allowed to say it out loud without being attacked is just more evidence for what you're not allowed to say but yet everyone knows it now. :D

Gulp. Aliens?

Exactly. And then 13000 boxes with all the "moon missions" original recordings were put into a trash can by some janitor lady. So unlucky!

@@Zorro33313It wasn’t all the moon missions. You’re making stuff up. I bet you can’t even articulate what was lost and what wasn’t.

@@TheSteveSteele yeye sure. photos are good (well, not exactly good since they've got moon color wrong lol). all the videos, sensor data etc - lost.

10 to 20 launches to refuel Starship, which is much, much larger than the Apollo craft that went to the moon the first time. This stuff is only confusing to you because you want it to be. Your ignorance is intentional...

@@Zorro33313 All of the Apollo missions telemetry data and tapes exist. Apollo 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. All of the telemetry data exists except for some of Apollo 11 telemetry data is missing. Search NSSDCA Master Catalog Search. “These data were extracted 'as read' from 7-track ALSEP ARCSAV (TELEMETRY) tapes that were recovered from the Washington National Records Center (WNRC) in 2010 [1]. Each tape contains 24-hour, time-edited, raw data (not decommutated) from instruments for the ALSEP station deployed near the Apollo 12 landing site. The NASA Johnson Space Center recorded approximately 5000 ALSEP ARCSAV tapes from April 1973 to February 1975 for Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 but so far only 439 of them containing data from April through June 1975 have been found at the WNRC [2].”

Wow. Just wow. You should study harder and read less propaganda. We never went! Period. It’s physically impossible and will never happen.

@@Ajaxx827wow, you’re just asserting something as fact and insulting someone who made a thoughtful and interesting post and who has a background in science.

​@@Will_SchrankI thought it was positive to a better future... there is always programs in programs.

@@mrchow7517 That was true when Mark Twain said it, and it’s still true today.

Sorry you are totally wrong. Russia were miles ahead of us in every aspect of the space race! People don't give up trying, just because one country did it! If Russia could have put a man on the moon then and now, they would have done so, there's trillions of minerals waiting to be had. Funding is NOT the issue. The Van Allen belts and space radiation are! Russia and China have sent Landers to the moon at less than $200million, we spent $10 Billion just on the JWST, with zero payback. The moon is rich in Helium 3 which has a current retail of more than $140 million per tonne!!! Even if we spent 10 Billion sending a mining crew to the moon, we could recoup that money back in Helium 3, in no time.

its not in the 60`they took a LOT of risks and risky decisions. That alone means anything regarding to bild the tech WILL cost more.

There was NO BUDGET. Unlimited funding to accomplish this by the end of the decade.

::: laughs in machinist ::: Buddy, you have no clue what you're talking about.

It pays a lot of salaries and companies. Keeps a lot of corrupt politicians friends happily. The point though, is defense is objectively useful and popular with voters. But going to the moon, to do what, is not. You will please a few percent of voters and make nerds excited going to the moon. If there was an asteroid on its way to earth in 5 years, we would be to the moon in a year, Mars in 2 and intercept the asteroid in 3.

More like 13 or 14 weeks.

ITs NOT peace, its inviting crazy guyd to do even more. as soon as they realize you are not defending yourself. Its Just the beginning of something WAY More Negative. dont be so naive.

@@iwh7 Well, I was referencing the idea of a modest reduction in military spending, rather than sacking every soldier and sending them home for five months, or 13-14 weeks as your fellow commenter has said. When have you heard of any initiative to rein in military spending, even to reduce nuclear warheads. Why wouldn't it be possible to negotiate a 10% reduction in arms spending among, say, the biggest five or ten spending nations. No one would be put at risk, as everyone was doing the same. Why isn't anyone even suggesting this? Arms lobby money, perhaps?

@@leskobrandon691 Ever the optimist, me. I probably forgot the present funding of two 'wars' abroad.

because what you watched is from hollywood. the actual work is a lot harder. and now it is a lot harder to fake it again because there are satellite from other country too.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.

My response was to @mmad3130's comment, not the second one.

Zero energy anti gravidic survey says..$0.00.00🤓👆🚨😜

@tma2001 ... and old Shuttle OMS engines acting now as main engines of Orion service module. 😅 Thats why the thing cant move worth s....

So Anthony Kiedis said so. What's your point? Are you that dim that you can't even understand a metaphor by the Red Hot Chili Peppers?

You know NASA itself is the origin of such a theory. It was all about destroying interest in this place that contains high tech remnants of an ancient society. Brookings Report/Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. You've got to read the entire documents because the summations give you the wrong/false impressions.

It's an opinion piece, that's a valid form of presentation and opens up to interesting arguments and conversations.

He answered the question. Price Politics Priorities Try to keep up.

The moon landings are so bloated with conjecture and conflated opinion...

Yes he DID answer the question.. some of you people I swear.

You sound like a fanboy for the Artemis program....haha

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

In your case, a library.

How high do you have to be to believe this?

Haha earth is flat too huh?

​@@festivalflightcrew2895 you don't have to be high at all to believe the governments lies just look to 2020 the entire world was lied to and everyone walked around with diapers on their face. You should get high on some form of plant and do some deep thinking. NASA lost all the technology and data on what was supposedly mankind's greatest achievement be a good thought to dwell on

Everyone takes this quote out of context. It doesn’t help that his choice of words was lazy. He’s stating the obvious though. After Apollo, NASA moved on to the Space Shuttle. The industry that was built up around the Saturn V was abandoned because it was no longer needed, and the engineers that worked on the Saturn V retired. Now 50+ years later we’d have to build up the entire Saturn V industry which would cost trillions probably. A new infrastructure is being built. But it has to be done right, or the whole mission will fail. It’s pretty damn sad that there are people like you that just laugh it off like a joke, when there were thousands of families that gave their entire existence to make Apollo happen and get Americans to the moon. I should know. I grew up in a NASA family. My father was rarely home because he gave most of his adult life to make sure the Apollo missions succeeded. My family knew most of the Gemini and Apollo astronauts. We know the truth because we lived through it. Everyday.

​@@TheSteveSteeleFalse narrative. We never went to the moon. You can't land on a light.

Hahaha, this is funny.

​@@TheSteveSteeleblah, blah, blah...

@@jaimealfaro200 Prove me wrong. You can’t.

On the contrary, there were nine manned missions to the moon and six landings. It would have been more had it not been for the premature cancellation of the Apollo Programme and the aborted Apollo 13 mission - (presumably NASA also inexplicably felt the need to fake a failure?)

Totally agree. With so many fake photos pretending to be taken from the moon, and the Van Allen Belts, we should all agree about the hoax that it was. It was a PR scheme used to cover up spy satellite launches, and to distract the exorbitant amount of tax payer dollars spent on the space program (defence budget). Everyone needs to get their head out of the sand.

It has a lot of Helium 3.

It's meant to be a way station en route to other destinations.

Pretty sure it contains some gold !

The Moon has lots of lithuim: you know, that stuff which helps the batteries in your phones and electric vehicles run. There's relatively little lithium in the Earth's crust.

There's lots of lithuim on the Moon: you know, that stuff which helps the batteries in your phones and electric vehicles run. There's relatively little lithium in the Earth's crust. 🤓

😆 Only in America 🐏🐑"led by da da-da🏁🤺🎯🤬 ts

60+ yrs and people believe this stuff? We have HD cameras yet no HD images of space

The only reason you know about the missing telemetry data tapes is because NASA released the information about it. All the data from the telemetry tapes was documented. Every Gemini and Apollo mission report is available online as is all the preliminary science reports. These reports include most of that data from the missing telemetry tapes. People like you are absolutely clueless about the sheer magnitude of what would be involved to pull a hoax like this off. I've asked numerous hoax believers to explain away all these points listed below and they can only come up with the typical hoax believer answer. Until you people can come up with something better that can be verified by credible experts in the relevant fields involved, then as far as I'm concerned, the moon landing hoax theory is right up there with the flat-Earth nonsense. Credible, btw, means somebody willing to have his/her work/evidence subjected to review by their peers. Endless speculation, conjecture and theories without proof don’t count: 1) 400,000 people were involved with the project, yet nobody has come forward with evidence that the landings never happened. You guys like to bring up the Manhattan Project compartmentalization security that kept only the ones in the need to know fully aware of what was going on. Yeah, sure. A top secret military project that kept even vice president Truman out of the loop being compared to a project like Apollo that was as publicly open as possible. Yet despite all the USA's attempts to keep the A-bomb project under wraps Russia still managed to get key people in the right places to provide them enough info that they developed their own bomb much sooner than the USA expected. You seriously expect us to believe that in the past 50+ years since the landings were supposedly staged, nobody has come forward with insider information or definitive proof? Yeah, right. ->Typical hoax believer answer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof) 2) The Russians tracked and confirmed all 6 of the Apollo moon landings. They offered to help with Apollo 13. Why would the USA's major competitor during the space race do that? ->Typical hoax believer answer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof) 3) Russia, Europe, China, India and Japan have all flown missions to the moon. So far, none of these countries/nations have brought forth any evidence that it's impossible to do a manned mission to it. That includes this nonsense about the radiation in the VAB's being too hazardous to pass through. No radiation expert from any country including the ones mentioned here have ever stated that the radiation in the VAB's was an insurmountable problem during the Apollo missions to the moon. Why is that? ->Typical hoax believer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof) 4) Scientist from around the world for the past 50+ years have verified and peer reviewed the lunar rock & core samples plus all the data transmitted back to Earth by the ALSEP's left behind. There's also the Apollo 16 UV telescope images that include some of Earth that no astronomer for the past 50+ years has ever found fault with. How do you explain this? ->Typical hoax believer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof) 5) Hoax believers have for the last 50+ years tried to find evidence that the landings were faked and have found nothing that can't be debunked. The proof they failed is that despite all their efforts, the missions are still in the history books. A story of that magnitude would have been seized on by investigative reporters and news networks. Not just the USA but countries from around the world would have gone after the biggest scoop in history. Explain how come they haven't. ->Typical hoax believer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof) 6) Third party evidence from countries outside the USA that NASA would have had to orchestrate and coordinate flawlessly while at the same time supposedly hoaxing the mission; How could they manage that without insider proof coming forward for the past 50+ years to blow the whistle on it all? ->Typical hoax believer: (Something involving a worldwide conspiracy with zero credible proof) Trying to discredit information because it came from NASA, as I'm sure you'll do, is a bit ridiculous. They made all the engineering and science required to pull the missions off available to their counterparts from all kinds of countries throughout the world. In regards to the Apollo landings, we are talking about hundreds of 1000's if not millions of people with above average intelligence in various countries throughout the world over a time span of 50+ years. I'm not just talking about the people involved with the project while it was happening. There's also all the scientists and engineers in the following decades that have access to everything related to it regarding the engineering plus all the scientific, peer reviewed evidence, data and samples. Yet in all that time none of these highly intelligent folks from around the world have ever found a way to somehow get information out to anybody about NASA"s alleged duplicity regarding the supposed landing hoax. Considering how incompetent everybody seems to think governments are, it's pretty amazing how people like you have no problem believing that a hoax of this magnitude could have been kept for so long without one piece of verified proof from the hoax believers being brought forward in 50+ years. All you guys have is unsubstantiated claims that require ridiculously more unlikely and equally unverifiable conspiracies within conspiracies to keep the original moon landing conspiracy going. Does that not give you the slightest hint that maybe the moon landing conspiracy is seriously flawed? People who see no problem with that usually dismiss, ignore or don't understand the irrefutable scientific evidence.

Not missing, never was.

It's gotta be around here somewhere.

investment in the military is actually more profitable than the space program. Apart from being able to safeguard national security and interests, the military also produces many products and inventions that we use today such as the Internet, jet engines, GPS, lasers, microwave ovens, drones, even blood transfusions and canned food too. Meanwhile, in outer space there are no natural resources that we can mine easily. Even if we could mine Helium-3 and minerals on the moon and then bring them back to Earth, it wouldn't make economic sense. The space program also did not make America safer or able to protect its allies and interests.

Did you even see the pie chart? This is like complaining that the company you work for is spending a whopping 20% of their profits on growth while conveniently ignoring the fact that around HALF of the budget is being used to pay off the owners gambling debts lol.

While I much prefer peace to anything else, thinking spending on the military is wasted budget is something so intellectually challenged. Look around the world. Look at history. If you value your freedom, the only reason you ever have it is because you keep around enough power to keep others from claiming yours. It's not nice. It's not fun. It would be better if things didn't work that way... but it takes only the other party to get a war started.

I'm not American and do I think the US spends too much on its military and too little on healthcare, yes I do, but there's a that the US has the biggest economy in the world, it's because it has a military able to take care of and protect the interests that keep its economy in this position. If you want China or other aggressive states to take parts of this, which would start to affect the US more and more then sure this is the way to go, in small ways this has already begun with had actors like Trump wanting isolation, but it isn't this that made America great in the first place. So, in summary, could less be spent on the military and more on other things, yes, but that doesn't mean the US didn't need a big military, unless it really does want collapse. I bet no one thought Rome could fall at is height, even on its way past its peak but it did, and the main reason was militarily it couldn't or would protect its economic interests which lead it into a spiral.

@@mattpotter8725 The US only needs that big military apparutus since it doesn't produce anything itself and relies on its bullying potential to extract whatever it needs from the rest of the world. However, the setup, finalized in the early 70's, is already in a gradual process of failing, which current events that I shouldn't have to remind anyone of are a testament to. "Isolation" didn't make America great in the first place? How about protectionism as a central US policy during the decades of massive industrialization from the end of the Civil War to the end of WWII?

Bingo. It's incredibly expensive and dangerous to keep biological organisms safe in space, and to safely return. Life support is a huge part of the requirement of current plans. AI+robots don't need oxygen, food, water, atmospheric pressure. They also tolerate radiation better. Sending people to the moon or mars is rapidly becoming a ludicrously wasteful and risky way to accomplish anything out there.

And the moon landing deniers will get scared real fast.

I imagine the answer will be "China doesn't exist, it's just Hollywood and genetically modified Americans." I really wonder what's happening to people, esp. in the US, last ~20 years.

I could not have said it better myself my friend and when they get there and everybody finds out that none of America's evidence is there....then thats when the shit hits the fan...

@@streamer_services So China can land on the moon but the Americans never did? Yeah, ok.

When the Chinese show the Moon does not look like gray cement like Apollo pictures then you will wake up.

I imagine a lot of people said the same to Columbus.

its not if they were all SLS rockets which is estimated at $4B per launch - he was talking about SpaceX Super Heavy+Starship which are fully reusable. The latter cost only the fuel at around 20M per launch. You don't throw away the whole jet plane after each trans-altlantic flight do you ? Unless its the Senate Launch System. Btw those refurbished left-over Shuttle engines at $300M a pop, that were reused many times, will end in the ocean with Artemis. So yeah ...

@@tma2001 the whole premiss of requiring 20+ rocket launches to get 1 crew to the moon is going to make it really tough.. we get launch delays all the time .. now times that by 20+ launches and all the boil off of the fuel up in orbit... then we need those 20 rockets to function all well the transfer that fuel in the first place...how we'll ever get into a position of having enough fuel at the right time for a launch with crew...i dunno sounds a stupid way to do it to me.

​@@tma2001the last one was already basically running out of propellant. Booster sure didn't have enough left to land safely and I suspect that starship wasn't gonna make it either. The moment we stop putting all of our eggs in that impossible basket is the moment we will finally make progress.

The number of launch claims keeps going up. How long until it reaches 30+? Those rockets which will fuel the depo in orbit are reusable and made out of stainless steel with engines under half a million each. It's cheaper than SLS.

@@Roguescienceguy The booster on flight 3 didn't run out of fuel it had an anomaly which caused it to explode 400+ meters above the ocean surface, during its soft water landing attempt. That anomaly hasn't been released yet and we'll likely have to wait until flight 4 to find out.

Look up the word in a dictionary.

They didnt . And they wont . 😅

@@martinattwood7801 Yes sir. People like doctor Paul are supposed to be the smart ones. lol

​@@martinattwood7801 🥴