Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "Where does NASA keep the Moon Rocks? - Smarter Every Day 220" video.

False. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). Now that the Shuttle program has ended, part of that budget has been reserved for SLS and Artemis. So we're now going back, on a lower budget (though still more than any other country spends on their entire space program), and it's taking a bit longer than Apollo.
5
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
4
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
4
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
3
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
3
@robertmooney1971 Just because you don't like what the evidence is telling you, doesn't make that evidence a lie or fake.
3
That's not going to happen, because the fact is that the moon missions were real.
3
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
3
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
3
The only radioactivity on the moon is from subatomic particles striking the surface, creating the occasional unstable isotope of a single atom. The level of radioactivity is low enough that these rocks are not dangerous.
3
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
2
The moon is moving away from us. Not so long ago its apparent size was larger than the Sun's. In a few million years its apparent size will always be smaller than the Sun's and we won't have total solar eclipses any more. Over the lifetime of the moon, it's statistically inevitable that at some point its apparent size would be the same as the Sun's. No, the Moon is not composed of titanium. It rang like a bell because that's how dry, solid rock behaves. Earth's crust is not dry (lots of water and other liquids in the rock) and it sits on top of molten rock. Both dampen vibrations more than dry rock does.
2
That could be an issue with very weak structures, but most rock is more than strong enough to withstand the higher gravity level.
2
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. Despite 50 years of trying, no moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims.
1