Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "Why is it Still So Hard to Land on the Moon?" video.

  1. Would not have saved IM-1. It tried to land while moving horizontally with so much speed it broke one of the legs.
    4
  2. The "they" you're talking about is a new company that seems determined not to learn from NASA's history, making dumb mistakes like forgetting to switch the altimeter to the correct mode before launch.
    3
  3. Making the legs shorter won't help when you forget to switch on the altimeter, as IM-1 did.
    3
  4. False. Before Apollo, NASA ran 29 unmanned missions of which more than half failed. Each failure improved subsequent missions. Then every aspect of Apollo was tested extensively, first with tests here on Earth, then tests in Earth orbit, both unmanned and manned, and then more tests in lunar orbit. And out of the 7 planned lunar landings, they had one major failure that nearly killed the crew of Apollo 13.
    3
  5. They didn't "lose the technology", certainly not in the sense you're thinking of. You are quoting someone who was wrong about that.
    3
  6.  @omarlondon  That quote is from an interview with Don Pettit, in 2010. The problem is that 'technology' has more than one meaning. The most common one is "know how to do things". We didn't lose that. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. We could rebuild those if we wanted. When he gave that interview, there was no factory cranking out rockets capable of manned moon missions. We know how to do that, but actually gearing up and building one would take close to a decade.
    3
  7. Going to the moon is not more difficult than it was in the 1960s. The big difference is that in the 1960s, both the US and the USSR were willing to spend huge amounts of money to get to the moon. NASA ran these missions to the moon: 8 Pioneer missions, all of which failed 9 Ranger missions, 6 of which failed 7 Surveyor missions, 2 of which failed 5 Lunar Orbiters, 1 of which failed. They spent billions on each of these programs, compared to the $100 M that was spent on IM-1.
    2
  8. We have plenty of evidence that proves we did go to the moon.
    2
  9. Apollo was done at a time when CGI consisted of wireframe images at 1 fps. We have evidence from multiple independent sources that shows the Apollo landings are real.
    2
  10. We have abundant proof that says we have been there before. In the 1960s, NASA launched 29 unmanned missions to the moon, 17 of which failed. IM-1 was the FIRST lander built by Intuitive Machines.
    2
  11.  @fuckyomamafuckyosisterfuck6136  Nope. Only the Rangers and early Lunas did that. The Surveyors did soft landings, as did later Luna missions: Luna 9 was the first soft landing on the moon. And of course we had the 6 soft landings made by the Apollo missions.
    2
  12. That reason is money. After Apollo, NASA's budget was cut by 90%, making manned lunar missions unaffordable.
    2
  13. We've landed successfully more than 30 times now.
    2
  14. SpaceX has done autonomous landings of its Falcon 9 first stage more than 200 times now.
    1
  15. False. The Apollo missions were real, and we have abundant evidence that proves it.
    1
  16. NASA sent 7 Surveyors to the moon in the 1960s, of which 2 failed.
    1