Video

Muscle fatigue only kicks in after extended stays in space dude, short term Russian launches had them coming out just fine. Not being able to walk is a months problem, not a week.

What are you even on about? The crew of Voskhod 2 landed off target, spent two nights in a forest in temperatures as low a -30 degrees Celsius and then skied 9 kilometres to a landing area where a helicopter picked them up. "Can't walk" lol

Only people without common sense would beleive we didn't, all evidence points to we went. But you're welcome to provide some, you'd be the first.

Theyre super smarter than eh-lon and had bettter technology… duh… without the help of G5 or cell phone reception . First try was enough , no other testing required 👍 Wait 🤔

Well, that's its approximate launch mass (actually 33,500 lbs). Why would you think it would weigh that much at touchdown on the Moon? Because by then it has expended virtually all of its Descent Stage propellant mass of 18,000 lbs. Then on the Moon its weight is one sixth of what it would be on Earth. So that's only 2,583 lbs at lunar touchdown. Oops!

@@eventcone only 2.5 tons??? Yet they left footprints with their boots..🤔 and it’s obvious thats the dirt is being kicked up in the “video”

@@thunderboltpenetrator8498 No - that would be 1.29 tons (2000 lbs in an american ton). Yes, of course some dust was kicked up. That's the key word - "some". How long would it take for all of it to be removed (clearly it wouldn't all be removed instantaneously)? It would take time to remove all of the dust, and the further from the engine the more time it would take. As dust was still being kicked up at the time of engine shutdown, it's clear that all of the dust was NOT removed. Also more of the dust immediately beneath the engine is likely to be removed than the dust around the LM, where the astronauts are walking.

@@eventconeinteresting, 18,000 lbs of fuel just to travel with a gravitational pull. Seems like a lot to use for landing, estimating 4 tanks 3’x10’. LEM doesn’t look large enough to house the fuel. And how much fuel to assent back into orbit and dock with the shuttle?. This time we would be lighter but flying against gravity.

Every era has 'limited technology'. There were more launches of the Space Shuttle than any other US spacecraft - around 130, in fact - not so 'difficult' as you make out.

@@eventcone yeah, but more advanced technology than the previous era. So with that advanced technology, why can't we go back to the moon? One reason they tell us is that it's too expensive, yet we have the funds for things like the space shuttle, the ISS, the multiple Mars rover mission, Cassini, the James Webb telescope? Just to name a few.....all costing billions.....

@@LauraReed-wu2ww That's like you saying that you don't have the funds for a new Ferrari, and me replying "yet you have the funds for things like a house, a Ford, fuel to heat and light your house, food, clothes and a family. All costing thousands per year" We can go back to the Moon. Bur first the US Congress has to approve the budget that provides provision for funding that. Then the necessary hardware has to be developed and the people who are going to enact it to be trained. Project Artemis is funded since 2017. The SLS launch vehicle has made its first flight, as has the Orion spacecraft. A second flight of Orion, this time on SLS is required, as also is a landing vehicle. So that hardware is in development.

@@eventcone lol no that's not even close to the same thing. Space shuttle program cost literally billions of dollars. Get real. Just watching the video alone from them lifting off the moon,,,,dude if you really believe that, then you are gullible.

@@eventcone have you watched the video of them taking off from the moon? With little to hardly any kind of propulsion system, they just floated on up there. Yeah, totally real. 100%. I totally completely believe it. I mean, it makes sense. You are right. What a fool I am. I need to start believing everything my government tells me. They never lie.

Because computers don't get us to the Moon.

They say they used the stars to navigate. With CGI you can go anywhere.....

@@wildboar7473 CGI in the 60s?

Did we use computers to get to the Moon? Operation. Astronauts manually flew Project Gemini with control sticks, but computers flew most of Project Apollo except briefly during lunar landings. Strange rumors godly Artemis is at risk because of sensitive Computer /Electronics, (think one was use for #1 moon getting) so why just not put humans on top of rocket and bingo! Easier to do than fake! :)

@@wildboar7473 Gemini had an onboard computer, although much more basic than the AGC.

Propaganda experts make lousy engineers. It was the engineers that the USA wanted. Not Joseph Goebbels' minions.

I doubt it's impossible and that's irrelevant anyway.

"They couldn't fly the submarine in the air but they sailed it several times underwater! Sailors of the seas, ha ha!"

The LEM isn't aerodynamic... it'd be like flying a plane underwater.

Then you’d better look into it (AGC) a little deeper.

Little problems with the display of the AGC hunchbacked /T6kCWINQLxk