youtube.com
Why is a NASA employee stating that we can't go back to the moon even if we wanted to?
WTF?
Can a science expert please explain how this happened to a brainlet like me?
Where did all the tax dollars go if not into continuously developing and preserving space travel technology since the '60s?
who cares?
The Apollo missions only got federal attention for the sake of sticking it to the Russkies, and both the government and general public are too shortsighted to see the point in funding space exploration past that point.
>read between the lines
dropped
I'm pretty sure by technology he's referencing the Apollo rockets, which don't exist anymore, and would be very difficult and expensive to make again
I think most of the documentation and how to died with the scientist who worked on the apollo missions.
You can google it and read about it.
Does OP really think space travel is a hoax?
LOL this guy... what a retard, I bet his mom still changes his nappy.
Fuck your video. It's probably fake, or you just don't understand what it means.
That's not what he said, he doesn't say we don't have Apollo technology anymore, he clearly states that no space travel technology is currently in existence or possible at this time. This is from a relatively recent press release. What gives?
That's what he is implying.
What other technology shit exists that can do a maned moon mission?
The guy's full of shit. That's what he's paid to be. They all are. youtube.com
IDK, what about the last 50+ years of funding to NASA? What was the American public paying for in the NASA budget if not for the preservation and continued development of this technology?
You were paying them to develop a shitty rocket that killed 14 people.
And some robots on mars
omg... since when is this board is crawling with science denying morons, get the FUCK OFF MY BOARD SCUMBRAIN
What he means is that United States literally don't have a human rated spacecraft, rockets with sufficient payload capacity and general infrastructure needed to conduct a manned lunar mission at the moment.
omg... since when is this board crawling with pseudo-science believing morons, get the FUCK OFF MY BOARD SCUMBRAIN.
It's not the technology that's lacking, but the organizational integrity,
NASA's all old men who have a long proven track record of medicrity behind them, and young diversity hires with no potential, but it's just about unthinkable to fire them all and hire people on the basis of merit.
Why are you blaming NASA?
Gubmint decides which missions get funding.
Why isn't Musquito funding a lunar mission?
must be /x/ leaking again
those guys really believe almost anything xD
It's always easier to get funding for a new road than to get funds to maintain an existing road. Same for NASA: it's easier to get Congress to approve money for something new than it is to get money for preserving archives. Also keep in mind that NASA uses tons of outside contractors and always has. Even if NASA preserves all of its knowledge, the knowledge held by outsider contractors will disappear as those companies move on to newer, better, and more profitable technologies.
They destroyed /g/ and like the locust they are, have moved on to Veeky Forums.
Speaking of Apollo missions, where is the data of our greatest achievement?
How is it possible to "lose" all the data that would have been stored on relatively huge reels?
Warehouses cost money. Climate control costs money. Security costs money. Archivists cost money.
If that was true, Don Pettit wouldn't have said "I'd go to the moon, but we don't have that technology anymore, we used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again" which clearly suggests that there never was any new form of technology that could travel to the moon, or ever will be.
Who fucking cares about going to the moon anyways?
So a trillion plus budget doesn't afford them warehouse space, a climate control system for only a ~60 year period, and some security?
Who would steal them? Why were they never copied? How is the supposed first landing on the moon not important enough to save?
People talk imprecisely all the time. And even if he meant that we too stupid now to be able to reach the moon, his act of believing that to be true doesn't necessarily make it true.
>Trillion plus budget
Source?
A trillion dollar budget is plenty of money to do those things but the trillion dollars weren't allocated to those things. In pretty much every organization, no matter how flush with cash, there will be areas that are poorly funded for various reasons. There is nothing sexy about a warehouse. No one running a warehouse gets promoted over the guy who gets on tv talking about the newest spacecraft design. It's a question of priorities. It's stupid that many of the reels have been subjected to water, humidity, temperature extremes, and all other manner of abuse but that's what happened to lots of media from that era. The good news is that in the current environment, you release the data out to the internet and you end up with millions of copies all over the place.
Hyperbole. Nevertheless, NASA has had enough money to secure and preserve the data but for reasons of budgetary politics chose to not make it a priority. Incompetence really rather than some grand conspiracy.
Why would his statement be released by NASA if it wasn't correct? This wasn't off the record, this is a press release. Only logical reason for them to release this video is that they want to let the public in slowly to the fact that space travel is fictional/impossible.
>trillion plus budget
Are you fucking high?
That's an impressive leap of logic.
>nothing sexy about preserving the original footage of the first manned extraterrestrial landing
>this can be simply explained away by incompetence
>of the same agency that made the achievement on their first try with no mistakes
Grasping for straws?
You have to understand that there's a lot of people in the industry from that time who still hold a lot of resentment about what happened after the Apollo program. Since developing a rocket and building the tooling, factories etc for it is actually the expensive part and once you have that it's reasonably cheap to continue producing them these people thought it would be terribly wasteful to just ditch all this technology which billions of dollars had been poured into. But for various political reasons that's exactly what happened and an entirely new system (the Space Shuttle) was developed.
I could be wrong but I detect this guy might be in that camp when he says "we destroyed that technology" and the only thing he's letting slip is his own annoyance at those past decisions.
I hope it means we will all be getting a tax refund for this blunder, NASA and the fed owes us all a big time for losing/destroying all those precious years of engineering and data that we paid them for.
I agree.
Let's make #NASArefund go viral on twitter
Fuck off tinfoil hat faggot
fuck off Don go destroy some more technology #NASArefund
...
>>NASA's all old men who have a long proven track record of medicrity behind them, and young diversity hires with no potential, but it's just about unthinkable to fire them all and hire people on the basis of merit.
>Why are you blaming NASA?
Because of what I just said, idiot.
>Gubmint decides which missions get funding.
Fourteen years ago, the government assigned NASA to build an ISS rocket, a moon rocket, and a capsule for both. Eight years ago, NASA was allowed to say it was too hard, to give up on the ISS rocket, and to switch to building a rocket that's not powerful enough to take the capsule on moon missions. So far, billions of dollars have been spent, NASA hasn't launched anything, and they say they're still years and billions of dollars from doing the first unmanned test flight, and it'll be years and billions of dollars more after that before they can do a working launch to nowhere in particular.
Yes, ultimately "the government" is responsible for what NASA has become, but NASA is part of the government, and none of this makes what NASA is, and who it employs, any less shameful or wasteful.
The government can't fix NASA without facing the reality of what it has become. They can't just give it different marching orders or more money. Nearly everyone currently working for NASA needs to be fired, and it needs to be totally reorganized. Basically, it's such a mess that it needs to be burned down and replaced.
Low Earth orbit is really still part of the atmosphere. Much of what NASA does could be split between NOAA and the FAA, leaving NASA responsible only for interplanetary and deep space projects.
Occam's razor.
Either one man is trying to get his point across using some exaggeration or the entirety of the space race was falsified. A global conspiracy that still continues to this day and space is really just a blanket with some holes cut in it.
Funding for things other than moon rockets. Congress slashed NASAs budget following the initial moon landings so NASA lacked the money to keep buying Saturn Vs and devoted all of their manned spaceflight funding to the space shuttle. Since they weren't buying new Saturn Vs all of the now unneeded tooling and most of the blueprints got thrown away or scrapped. Around this time the bureaucrats took over and NASA became a source for congressional kickbacks and space jobs rather than an agency that builds practical rockets. As a result they ended up with a mediocre rocket that had severe flaws and then afterwords never got the money to upgrade it into anything useful or to develop anything new.
Why not apply that logic to ?
How could a group of people be smart enough to pull off something that incredible on their first try, and yet not be wise enough to preserve the data or make a single copy?
Following your suggestion of the simplest explanation being the best, it never happened.
It seems that as humans we just cannot do anything if is not necessary. USA reached the moon in need to beat the Russians, we dont have any clear goal with space exploration and thats our bigger problem.
I like how the lunar missions took roughly 2 days to get to the moon but the falcon heavy launch took nearly two days to get unnoticeably further from earth than the day of the launch.
Really makes u think.
Hubble, ISS, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto flyby, objects in the asteroid belt, putting a bunch of military satellites in LEO.
American public mostly pays for research, not maintenance. Apollo stuff was kept on warehouses full of paper, converting that stuff to longer lasting storage mediums would cost a ton of time and money and would take away from the science. If NASA wasn't doing something to earn congress votes, then its budget would get slashed in favor of something that would earn votes, and unfortunately after landing a man on the moon, there wasn't much else NASA could do that was more exciting to the public. That is why the last few Apollo missions were shitcanned and NASAs sights were put on other science and militaristic supporting targets.
Apollo 11 took 75 hours before it made the burn to enter lunar orbit.
The falcon heavy roadster passed lunar orbit fewer than 48 hours after launch.
>preserving the first and greatest achievement of all time isn't worth the cost
>copying some tapes
oh you, stop joking
>That is why the last few Apollo missions were shitcanned and NASAs sights were put on other science and militaristic supporting targets.
No, after demonstrating that it was possible to land on the moon, at unacceptable expense, NASA was primarily assigned to make spaceflight cheaper.
They responded by spending a decade making a "reusable vehicle" that cost more than Saturn V per flight with about a fifth of the payload capacity to LEO, which was the only place it could go. Then they continued to spend most of their budget flying it for three decades, demonstrating that there was no amount of money you could budget them that would overpower their wastefulness and cause them to actually accomplish things.
Copying some tapes includes recreating the machines that can read them. Also many of the tapes have disintegrated so much that you couldn't put them through the machines that were used to read them half a century ago.
>preserving the first and greatest achievement of all time isn't worth the cost
Sure it's worthwhile to humanity but not to the bureaucrat looking to get their budget increased or looking for a promotion. Go to Congress with
>Hey guys look, a new spaceship that can be built in your district and you can claim you helped create
or
>I need money to convert data tapes from an obsolete four bit encoding format on magnoptical tapes into a modern format to put on the internet.
Geezer McCampaigner is going to go with the first choice every time. NASA shouldn't have been left in charge of preserving these items. They're important enough that an agency like the National Archives should have been put in charge. But that's not what happened and you're stuck with an agency full of people trying to make a name for themselves not wanting to be on janitor duty.
By technology he means super human black woman who can calculate better than computers.
Orbit docking of modules was done in the Gemini program. So no we can't launch a moon mission right now with one rocket, but we can certainly do it with two or three of them, then dock.
>Really makes u think.
Apparently it didn't make you think enough to bother learning the most basic things about orbital mechanics before saying stupid things
the problem NASA has been having is they don't ever get to focus on anything long enough to get it done. they keep having to shelve projects because their mission gets changed or their budget gets precipitously yanked midproject.
because they are government bureaucrats who have sabotaged American space exploration for decades
>there are people ITT who actually believe we went to the moon
lmao
you're retarded
you don't see the stars when you're in sunlight
you see the stars when you're in the shadow of the space station, because there's nothing in your line of vision that reflects sunlight and overwhelms them
this is not a difficult fucking concept
>there are people ITT who actually believe the Earth is round
lmao
>did you mean spherical?
lol, just meaningless semantics right
I think the term you're looking for is Globular
uh ashkully, u meant oblatoid spheroid?
You just described the world.
The technology doesn't exist because it never did exist.
Plans for the Saturn V are incomplete. Pages missing. Original designers either dead or demented. Goverment has no reason to spend billions of dollars to get some rocks we have studied already
We currently have nothing that can land people on the Moon.
It's true.
We have rockets that can put people into space. We have capsules we can put people in. We have nothing to land on the Moon with.
The technology for manned space travels is outdated and obsolete. You'd have to start from scratch just to achieve something people already did 50 or so years ago.
Hi Veeky Forums, thought you might like
>pic related
Not all of us on /x/ are completely retarded.
Also, as long as /x/ is stuck with the flat earth threads, it'd be nice if a couple of you Veeky Forumsentists (who like arguing on the internet) would come visit. I know flat tards will never change their minds, and will reject all evidence that goes against their convictions, but it's still nice to see them get BTFO.
No what he means is that alyums and fake landings and oh shit i'm late for alex jones
That was to keep jobs in Alabama.
>trillion plus budget
tell me what drugs you are on
>publicly reported budget must = actual budget
apparently not the "naive as heck" pill
>The falcon heavy roadster passed lunar orbit fewer than 48 hours after launch.
That's what you can do when you don't have to slow down later, and no meatbags to care about excessive G-force.
>continuously developing and preserving space travel technology
The space travel technology developed after Apollo were about sending humans to low orbit (Mir, ISS, space shuffle), and sending robots to the solar system.
Our planet is surrounded by a death zone, en.wikipedia.org
Sending humans further away is absurdly expensive and dangerous, and serves no purpose beside dick contests with USSR. There's nothing a human can do a robot can't for a millionth of the price.
Speaking about money, NASA's funding is lowered regularly, while inflation is still a thing. So no, they literally don't have the money to maintain code from before MSdos and Basic. They had their own version of assembler, and no funding to maintain any kind of legacy or documentation.
In any other industry, they would have passed a point where they needed to start everything from scratch anyway, so there isn't that much lost actually.
They've been asking for more money yearly, it's not like they didn't warn anybody.
>Our planet is surrounded by a death zone, en.wikipedia.org
Yeah, such a deathzone that NASA went to the moon 5 times (they keep rather quiet about that, for some reason), and no radiation issues at all.
So you want me to believe that the Van Allen radiation belts are deadly, we have copius amounts of space debris that could prove fatal if it gets in contact with rocket/satellite.
Oh, and NASA simply don't have the budget to send people beyond LEO. 19 billion a year doesn't fucking cut it. MORE.
Give me a fucking break.
We don’t have that many tax dollars anymore, the top tax bracket used to be 90%, but then Reagan cut it in half; no more money for moon mission
According to en.wikipedia.org
According to usinflationcalculator.com that's $140.23 billions in 2017.
So yeah, 19 billions is nothing.
It's enough to be told climate change is a Chinese scam of course, but not to send humans far in space.
Trump just increased the debt by 1.8 trillions. You sure don't have this kind of money.
>Speaking about money, NASA's funding is lowered regularly, while inflation is still a thing.
Wrong, NASA budget is flat when adjusted for inflation.
Contrary to popular belief, the budget of NASA is roughly constant after the Apollo peak ended. It was not defunded, neither by Obama or by republicans.
The failings of NASA have to do with being a huge corrupt bureaucracy and a victim of being a pork barrel for politicians.
There is no actual technical reason why a rocket launch must cost $ hundreds of millions, or why a new rocket must cost tens of billions to develop.
Thank God for SpaceX.
>I bet
there is no wagering at Veeky Forums, Grandpa
Corruption and self-indulgence, It happened to the romans not a big deal.
Apollo was drowned in money to accomplish a specific, unprecedented goal. It was far from an efficient program and used an army of 400,000 people spread all over the country to do it. It is not comparable to space programs currently.
>Wrong, NASA budget is flat when adjusted for inflation.
>posts graph that jumps multiple billions on year-to-year basis
don't forget that semantics help differentiate you from the other apes, user
certainly not the "informed as fuck" pill
>random jumps on the order of 10%, with no long term trend either up or down
>not being approximately flat
Autism is strong in this one.
The problem with NASA has little to do with size of the budget and much more with how that money is utilized.
>So yeah, 19 billions is nothing.
It is $19 billion every year.
NASA has spent several times MORE money since the end of Apollo than it has spent on Apollo itself. Inflation adjusted.
Clearly, throwing money at the problem is not a solution, nor is this the reason for us being stuck in low orbit for 50 years, with little to show for it.
Health and safety has deemed the Apollo rockets too dangerous.
NASA is very inefficient today and does all types of shit outside its core mission, which is space research and exploration. Get rid of all the liberal bullshit and pump all that money into building a Lunar base and a lunar-earth space station.
Show us some examples of working lunar landers, preferably ones that fit on today's rockets?
>Why is a NASA employee stating that we can't go back to the moon even if we wanted to?
He is right, we didn;t keep the tech for lunar flight beacuse we didn;t need it any more. In my view, that was shortsighted, but it is what happened.
That does not mean we could no develope it again. It would be easier now, with better materials, computers, etc, and with some knowledge of how it can be done because it was done once.
But we don't have the technology at the moment. We'd have to rebuild it.
Depends on how tightly you define "right now." None of the necessary vehicles exist "right now."
>Not all of us on /x/ are completely retarded.
Citation needed
>What was the American public paying for in the NASA budget if not for the preservation and continued development of this technology?
NASA did other things, according to priorities set by elected officials. I'm not sure "hoarding" old tech was anybody's political priority. zCertainly there was no priority to continue making spacecraft that did not fit the new missions that the politicians were funding.
>and yet not be wise enough to preserve the data or make a single copy?
Would you please specifically describe what data you contend is missing that should have been preserved? Don't want to waste time refuting a point that is not the one you are making.
You assume NASA sets it's own core mission, or that it is what space buffs think it should be.Z
New administrations and new congressional leaders have different ideas about core mission, to fit their agendas and ideologies. Since Kennedy's challenge to "go to the moon in this decade," made into a crusade when he became a martyr, NASA has not had a consistent core mission with strong support.
>In my view, that was shortsighted, but it is what happened.
Meh. Moon missions were of questionable scientific value, given their costs. Even something like the fucking expensive ISS is somewhat questionable, even though the rest of the world thanks the US for keeping it going.
No question about it, the Moon landings were a fantastic feat of technology, but if you'd have to pick whether you send 3 people to the Moon to play golf, or for the same price get some vegetation monitoring satellite (from which the agriculture sector profits heavily) up there for a small fraction of the cost ... you probably go with the latter.
But that was not the either/or choice.
In any case, I think it was short-sighted, havign developed the tech and engineering and data, not to preserve it better.
But as I said, good idea or not, it's what happened.
We havent built anything that can leave low earth orbit that can carry people in a long time, it was no longer worth it to go to the moon more with people at that point in time, then our technology advanced to the point where it was clear we shouldnt build another rocket like the ones we had already built, but we never did due to lack of reasons to go to the moon. We "have the technology" we just dont have a rocket that can do it built and ready.
>which clearly suggests
No it doesnt, youre just stupid.
>Only logical reason for them to release this video is that they want to let the public in slowly to the fact that space travel is fictional/impossible.
Are you from
Or
?
Is it the jews?