Tim Dodd and hosts dissect moon landing conspiracies, debunking Bart Sibrel's false claims about camera tricks and audio delays while highlighting preserved 16mm film and NASA archives. They contrast Apollo's cost-plus model with SpaceX's reusable success, noting over 580 Falcon 9 landings versus Boeing's Starliner delays, and discuss Jared Isaacman's push for modernized footage. The episode covers Artemis 2's upcoming flyby, Mars terraforming challenges, and the dangers of AI misinformation undermining scientific truth amidst rising satellite counts. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Moon Landing Conspiracy Deep Dive00:15:01
The first time I discovered you was when you made that video about addressing the whole moon landing conspiracy.
You made the most incredible deep dive on all the points of the moon landing hoax, conspiracy, whatever you want to call it, that I've ever seen.
And you address them all.
You bring a lot of information to it and you make a very compelling case for every single argument.
But before we get into all that, How tell us, tell me your background and how you got into all this stuff the rocketry stuff and everything you do with your YouTube channel.
Yeah.
So, uh, yeah, I run a YouTube channel called Everyday Astronaut and, uh, I've been doing that full time since 2017.
Uh, before that, I was a professional photographer.
So that's actually why, like, a lot of this moon stuff and when people have, uh, you know, topics about, you know, the shadows and the lighting and the stars and stuff, I'm always like, yes, this is like, this is in my ultimate wheelhouse, you know.
But, uh, starting in 2017, I really just became obsessed with space flight.
It actually all started, I bought like a, Old Russian spacesuit, kind of as a joke in 2013, and started an art project.
And that art project, a photography project, was called Everyday Astronaut.
And so it was like, I literally took the suit around the world.
I mean, I hiked the Great Wall of China with the spacesuit and took pictures of me.
I don't know what I was doing really with it other than just I wanted to make something.
This is kind of when Instagram was like, you know, everyone was trying to do some catchy Instagram thing.
So that was kind of my outlet as a professional photographer.
I just wanted an art project.
But I was also hiding, like, I was doing series where I was hiding a lot of like Easter eggs and facts about like spaceflight, you know, and especially like spaceflight history.
And I just fell in love with it.
I went from like, I like space, and you know, I grew up with like the Lego space shuttle and like a space shuttle poster on the wall kind of thing, but was way more into like cars and jets and music and whatever, you know, not necessarily like a space kid, you know, I was never like, my goal in life is gonna, I'm gonna go to space, you know, like not like that.
But all of a sudden, like during that like 2013 14 process, I just fell in love with the whole thing just by doing the art project and also watching at the time, like that's when SpaceX was trying to land their Falcon 9 booster for the first time.
So I just started like watching some of that stuff, and I was like, This is awesome.
Like, why?
How can I learn more about this?
And I was just, you know, going over like on Reddit all the time and I was reading all the blogs and watching every, like, everything I could absorb.
And there wasn't a lot out there.
And I'm like, I don't know.
Why don't I just make videos about this stuff?
Cause it's really exciting.
And like, I feel like there's a lot of questions that I'm seeing asked often that I'm not getting good answers to.
So I just started making videos about how rockets work.
And that just, it pretty much.
So you're self taught.
You just kind of like learned all this stuff on your own.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Wow.
Yep.
And it just kind of kept going, started going to rocket launches, you know, out here at the Cape over here in Florida and at Vandenberg.
And then SpaceX started doing a lot of stuff at Starbase, Texas, which is like very southern tip of Texas down by Brownsville in 2019.
And I started covering all that stuff originally from a guy's rooftop, like from two and a half miles away during some of their first test flights.
And then started, I mean, I've been out there for pretty much every single launch out there as well with their Starship vehicle and things like that too.
And you're based in Iowa.
Based in Iowa.
Yep.
But spent a lot of time in Texas.
Texas is kind of home to.
And uh, and I'm just yeah, wherever the rockets take me, rocket chaser man, yeah, that's wild, dude.
So, at what point did you decide to make that film addressing the whole moon landing thing?
It was because of the uh, Joe Rogan, oh, something, yeah, like wow, yeah.
I watched it and I couldn't even get about 10 seconds into it before I was just like, wanted to just oh, it was just so painful because so many of the things like start on the false premise.
On the first words out of his mouth of his arguments, a lot of times were just a completely false premise.
And then he builds a case on that initial false premise.
And I'd be happy to get into some of that if you want.
But that's why.
And for me, I didn't want to take it as, to be honest, a lot of these questions are completely sincere for a lot of people.
Even my dad, who doesn't necessarily think we haven't been to the moon, but definitely is like, I don't get this.
How is this?
Or one of my best friends, he's definitely asked me almost every one of those questions sincerely.
And I think that's totally fair.
That's a great place.
That's a great curiosity for a person to have.
So I wanted to take it as, These are sincere questions people have.
Let's give them sincere answers, not just like a refutal to conspiracy theories.
Let's explain this stuff.
Let's go over the rocket science.
Let's actually dive in so deep that you go, oh, I get this now.
And if you get all the way deep enough, it becomes beautiful.
And you really start to appreciate a lot of the things that had to be considered for the Apollo program.
And for me in general, I just find that a lot more fun and exciting, even than the conspiracy theories.
So for me, I'm not.
My current position is I'm not convinced we didn't go and I'm not fully convinced we went.
I'm a little bit on the fence here.
That's a great place to be.
I kind of understand.
Like, the biggest thing for me is the context of the whole Cold War is when the government was lying through its teeth more than any time in history.
It's when we did all the crazy conspiracy theories Gulf of Tonkin, Bay of Pigs, Kennedy, you name it.
And we went to the moon right in the middle of all that.
Wow.
You know, at the same time, I get it from the perspective of the space race and wanting just to put together this great spectacle for humanity to elevate America on the world stage and portray us as better than everyone else.
And it was really important for us to do that.
And it was worth risking human lives to do that for just accomplishing the feat of getting human beings on the moon.
And to why the question is, why haven't we been back?
Well, it makes sense.
You wouldn't want to risk more lives.
We already did it, number one.
And number two, robots can do just as good of a job as human beings can do.
So you might as well just send robots there.
It'll be cheaper, it'll be safer.
And, you know, we don't need to do it again until it's really, really easy.
Until it's easy and inexpensive is the other big factor.
So that makes sense to me.
So that's kind of why I'm on the fence.
And I'm not fully convinced by all of Bart's points.
Bart did bring a lot of.
Evidence to the table that is, it's kind of impossible to prove because it's like some things that he says, Oh, I saw this on Fox News 15 years ago, and you try to pull up a source and there's nothing there.
Right.
Exactly.
But in the shadows, you also did a very good job of pointing out, you know, the truth about the shadows.
And Steve actually is a cinematographer, not a 12 time award winning cinematographer like Bart.
He's a six time award winner.
Dude, I want it so bad just to be like, What awards, man?
Like, let's see.
Like, oh, I love one of the things that he says often is like, I received a million dollars and it took me seven years to make this documentary.
As he's like a proud point, a million dollars to produce his video.
I produced in nine months a two and a half hour video for zero dollars.
Like, yes, where did this money come from?
Why, like, a million dollars is a good budget for a film like that.
Like, he uses that as a look at me, and it's like, well, that's not well, yeah, but you have to be able to look through those quirks and try to find the reason in some of the stuff.
That he's bringing to the table.
And I try to peel back that onion as much as I can and try to unbias myself when it comes to this stuff.
You know, that's why you're here.
So, yeah.
Convince me we went to the moon.
Yeah.
Okay.
I'll be happy to.
Where do you want to start?
Where do you want to start?
Well, I think my biggest thing when it comes to what Bart brought to the table was the video that Von Braun did for Walt Disney when they put together those films.
And he's talking about the Saturn V rocket.
And he says, Our biggest problem with getting to the moon is we would need to refuel in.
Earth orbit to be able to get into lunar orbit, right?
And that is what boggles my mind.
That combined with the other interviews of astronauts, and I think he says Elon Musk, even though I've never seen it, I think it was in an article where he was definitely Elon.
Yeah, Elon says that they need to figure out they need to refuel a bunch of times to get 12 to 15 times.
So, what makes the Saturn V so magical that it doesn't need to refuel and then it can get there?
Yeah.
Well, let's start off.
So, a lot of the things like when you see, you know, that clip of the Walt Disney clip with Von Braun was, that was, I think, 1958, 19, like way before.
About 10 years before, 10 to 12 years ago.
Way before they had even decided that that was talking about doing things like direct descent.
So, not doing the moon orbital rendezvous where they leave, you know, they have the lunar lander.
Why don't you find the clip?
So, yeah, I'd be curious on the exact date because it's in the vehicle that he shows on screen is this massive vehicle that's total.
It looks more like Starship, frankly, where you have this recoverable upper stage.
You know, the idea is if you're reusing hardware, you're expending some of your payload potential in order to be able to reuse the hardware, right?
And the Saturn V basically was like, well, let's just throw it all away, right?
And including, like, you know, let's talk about first the Saturn V. The Saturn V, you know, weight, I'll use, I have to use kilograms, sorry.
And that's fine.
Yeah.
It was about 2,800 tons.
So 2,800 tons or 2,900 tons at liftoff, or sorry, kilograms at liftoff.
So 2,900 tons.
Kilograms at liftoff.
What ended up landing on the moon by the time the descent stage had used up propellant to slow down out of lunar orbit has to slow down, which lowers its orbit.
That orbit ends up intersecting the moon.
You have to keep slowing down, keep slowing down, keep so you don't smash into the moon.
Yeah, you burn through about eight tons of propellant.
It's 15 tons at the start of its burn and it goes through eight tons.
So by the time it lands on the moon, it's roughly it's I think it's seven or eight tons.
I think it's about seven tons that lands on the moon.
Whoa, so 7,000 kilograms out of.
2,900,000 kilograms, right?
So when you do that equation, you're talking about a quarter of a percent of mass that was lifting off from Earth actually touched down on the moon.
That's not much.
Less than 1% of what took off mass wise actually landed on the moon.
That is insignificant.
What SpaceX is trying to do, they're trying to reverse this because right now SpaceX is NASA's lunar lander.
They're one of two Blue Origin and SpaceX.
They're both contracted for the human landing system to be able to land humans on the moon.
And instead of, hey, let's send this $4 billion rocket and only get 0.25% of its mass onto the moon, what if instead of throwing it all away, we actually got it up into orbit?
This thing's huge.
It's 100 tons dry, at least 100 tons.
So 100,000 kilograms dry.
Massive.
How much bigger than the Saturn V?
So just the dry mass alone.
So the Saturn V alone was 2.8, we'll say, 2,800 tons.
Starship is about 5,000 tons when it's fully fueled.
So it's over twice as heavy.
And so it has twice as much propellant, which means it has twice as much potential.
However, they're reusing, they're planning to reuse everything.
There's only two stages.
The booster is reused and famously gets caught by the launch tower so they can, like, use as they don't even have to put landing legs on the thing.
They're trying to strip all the mass down.
So they're trying to get it so they can flip this equation.
So instead of eight tons landing on the moon, they're talking about not only is the dry mass of the vehicle 100 tons, so already a lot more, then it needs about 200 tons of propellant to land with it to be able to get it back off the moon.
So we're talking about 300 tons landed on the moon.
300 tons.
That's 300,000 kilograms.
That is.
So much mass on the moon.
I mean, that's like, we're, you know, we're talking 20 fold, 200 fold, 20, a lot more than what the Apollo program.
And not only that, it's about 100 times the internal volume.
So, this.
And why so much bigger?
Like, why does it have to be that much bigger?
It's 21st century, baby.
We're dealing, if the only cost is fuel, if you're reusing your hardware, you're only expending fuel.
They can do this.
They only got $3 billion to do this.
That's like nothing.
You know, and the Apollo program is almost $300 billion.
Billion dollars.
Right.
So to land Starship multiple times on the moon, they were contracted for only three billion dollars.
Whoa.
So we're talking about just a.
So when people get frustrated that why didn't we go back to the moon?
Because it takes that kind of money initially until the technology now is caught up to where we can make it sustainable.
We can do it.
And not only can we do it better, bigger, we can do it way cheaper.
And it's just a totally, totally different equation now because now instead of, you know, that small mass fraction of your payload getting on the moon, now you can cheat the system because you can refuel it in space.
And then get that off to the moon, you can land way bigger.
I mean, again, the internal volume is something like 600 cubic meters of volume.
And that's about half or a little more than half the internal volume of a 747.
So, imagine landing half of a 747 on the moon.
So, your crew has these luxurious cabins almost.
It's almost a condominium in space.
And that's versus it was only like six and a half cubic meters, is what the Apollo crew had.
So, they had like a tent, they had a canoe versus a cruise ship.
It's like, We're talking so different.
And so that's when Elon's saying, you know, we need 12 to 15 refueling because we're not doing Apollo again.
We've done Apollo.
In fact, there were three Apollo missions that were canceled, the hardware had been built already.
That's how much the public was like, eh, been there, done that.
Right.
We've been there.
Why are we still wasting money on this moon thing?
Like, that was the sentiment.
And again, kind of because of the Cold War and Vietnam and, you know, civil rights movements, all these things, people were just like, they saw that, like, you know, the sentiment was, why are we wasting our.
Time and money on this now, right?
And so, Apollo 18, 19, 20 had the hardware, had the crews, were ready to fly, and got canceled because of the lack of public and congressional support, right?
So, like, the conspiracy really isn't like, oh, we couldn't go back there, it's just it cost a lot of money.
You know, NASA's budget was a lot more than it is now to be able to do this in the first place, and at some point, people were just going, eh, I'd rather not.
Rocket Reusability and Starship Goals00:07:28
I'm not getting any younger, I still feel sharp, but sometimes the energy isn't what it used to be.
And oftentimes, it's not about being out of shape, but more about blood flow, which is why I've been using Blood Flow 7.
Blood Flow 7 boosts nitric oxide levels 230% in just three hours, and it opens up arteries up to 62%.
With better circulation comes oxygen delivery and better pumps in the gym.
The energy is noticeable, and you get better sleep because of it.
Better circulation feels like more stamina in the gym and faster recovery.
Proper circulation is better for your heart, focus, and energy throughout the day.
There's no chemicals or crash.
Just your body doing what your body does best.
It isn't about chasing your 20s.
It's about feeling energized, capable, and clear.
That's the way you should feel.
Try Bloodflow 7 today and feel the difference where it matters most, inside your veins.
Visit bloodflow7.comslash Danny and get 30% off with my link.
That's B L O O D F L O W, the number seven, dot comslash Danny.
It's linked below.
Now back to the show.
For these new missions to go up there, apparently we're supposed to orbit the moon again like next month, right?
We're about two weeks away.
Two weeks?
Yeah.
As early as February 6th.
Okay, Steve found the Von Braun video.
Is this the one?
Does it say the year?
This is it.
Okay.
This is one that Bart sent me.
Okay.
You can actually find it on YouTube and it says the year.
I found it on YouTube before.
Or you can go to Sabrell.com.
Oh, God.
All right, play it.
Here to reveal a plan for a trip around the moon is the chief of the guided missile development at the United States Army's Redstone Arsenal, Dr. Werner von Braun.
Right there, Redstone Arsenal.
It's not even NASA.
A voyage around the moon must be made in two phases.
See the rocket next to it?
A rocket ship taking off from the Earth's surface.
Will use almost all the fuel it can carry just to attain a speed great enough to balance the pull of gravity.
Unpowered, it will then keep circling the Earth in an orbit outside of the atmosphere.
This is the first phase.
However, if we can refuel the ship in this orbit with fuel brought up by cargo rocket ships, it can set out on the second phase the trip around the moon and back.
He's describing Starship exactly.
That's exactly what Starship's trying to do.
And the reason why, and even today it's criticized as being too technically challenging because they're trying to, they have to rely on two unproven technologies so far.
Those technologies are orbital refueling.
No one's ever transferred that much propellant.
I mean, we're talking about thousands of tons, like a thousand tons of propellant.
Cryogenic.
So you have liquid methane, liquid oxygen needing to be transferred from a depot onto this moon landing vehicle.
That's technology number one.
The other one, in order to even be able to refuel the depot and get the depot, You have to have this rapid reusability thing nailed down.
They have to be able to land a rocket, fill it up just like an airplane, and take back off again.
These are huge, the biggest engineering challenges ever.
The space shuttle tried to incorporate some of the reusability because it's an obvious thing.
Why are we throwing away billions of dollars of hardware?
Why aren't we reusing this stuff?
Well, the smartest minds in the world have always wanted that.
Von Braun wanted that.
It's extremely hard.
And even with 21st century technology, computing, You know, material science, all of these things, it's still a huge, that's still the ultimate, you know, the holy grail of spaceflight is reuse and actually being able to reuse your rockets, just put fuel back in them and take back off.
So, this video of Von Braun, he is talking about a reusable rocket.
Yeah, you see, even the top would look like a space plane.
The top of it literally has wings and it's like a space shuttle because the idea would be reuse this whole vehicle.
Oh, or at least reuse the upper stage.
So, that's, and that was the convention is like, this shouldn't be that hard.
Right, but this is before anyone had ever launched a human into orbit.
How would they shoot?
How would they conceive of back then retrieving that rocket they shot off to the freaking moon?
So, again, notice how it literally looks like a plane on top.
Yeah, um, convention.
Oh, I see.
So that thing jettisons off, yeah, to be the upper stage.
Yep, and this is this was the convention before you know, I don't know if we have a year on this yet, and then the bottom part.
What happens to the bottom part?
That's just gone.
That's probably just gone for this, okay?
But you know, the idea of reusability has been kind of an inherent why.
No one wants to throw rockets away.
It's just really, really hard to not throw them away.
Yeah, exactly.
And that's been like the key, you know, the actually the key to SpaceX's success is this thing called G Fold.
It's a way to be able to land rockets.
I mean, that's one of their keys to success.
G Fold.
It's this algorithm that basically allows them to know exactly, the rocket knows exactly when to light the engines to be a perfectly.
You know, you've seen the Falcon 9 land.
Yeah.
Yeah, where it's like screaming in last second.
Lysis engines, what feels like way too late, and then comes down and lands perfectly.
And by the way, do you know how many times they've landed a Falcon 9 now?
No.
Just take a wild guess.
A hundred.
I think they're.
At over 550 or 580.
What?
580.
It's about every two to three days now.
Where do they land?
Most of them land out on drone ships, like 500, 600 kilometers downrange.
Some of them, if they're light enough payloads, drone ships.
Yeah, they have these big, they're called autonomous spaceport drone ships, is what they call it, ASDS.
And there we go.
547 times.
46 times.
97% success rate.
Yeah.
So this has become completely like.
Or, like, absolutely routine for SpaceX.
They have mastered landing and reusing the booster of their Falcon 9 rocket.
So, if they're light enough payload, they'll be able to, they can land them, you know, light enough payload or not far enough, like, not far destination, like just Leo.
They can land them back here, like, right back where they took off from the booster.
Yeah, the booster.
And otherwise, like, when they're doing their Starlink missions, which is like 90% of their launches, those ones, just so they can get the most out of the booster, they land them on these floating, they're like a football field size platform.
They land them and then they tow them back in.
So, they're just constantly sending these things out to catch them because then they can follow the trajectory.
So, they can let go of the booster, let go of the second stage.
The second stage goes off into orbit.
The booster basically coasts and follows its ballistic trajectory.
And they more or less put the drone ship where it's going to fall.
And then it guides itself with these grid fins.
Wow.
And then they need to be able to know exactly the precise time to be able to guide like a guided missile.
It's a giant guided missile.
This thing's 15 stories tall, weighs 20 tons even empty.
And it's coming back down.
And it has the lightest engines at the perfect moment to be able to preserve and use as little fuel as possible.
If you light them too, and the crazy thing is the thrust weight, it has nine Merlin engines on the Falcon 9.
That's why it's called Falcon 9.
And even with one engine at its minimum throttle setting, which is 40% throttle, 38% ish, 40%, even at that minimum throttle, if it can't hover, it has too much thrust to hover.
So picture this.
So picture coming back in and it lights its engine.
Let's say it lights its engine five seconds too early.
It'll stop above the ground.
And because it can't go any lower throttle, it'll actually start going back up.
Just with one engine.
Just with one engine at 40%.
Cold War Arms Race Origins00:05:44
Whoa.
So, them trying to master this like they have proves that they have this thing nailed down, right?
So, they have it's been so game changing that it's taken so just literally last November, Blue Origin was the second company to land an orbital class booster almost 10 months to the day since SpaceX first did it.
That's how far ahead SpaceX has been with landing and reusing rockets.
They were 10 years ahead of their next closest competitor.
That's bonkers, dude.
So, everyone wants this.
Everyone wants to reuse their rockets because why would you build millions of dollars of hardware, billions of dollars of hardware, and then just throw it away?
So, 1955.
So, it's 14 years.
We hadn't even put anything in orbit yet at this time.
Really?
When he's describing this.
So, this is crazy that NASA, by the mid 1960s, was basically a cocktail of former SS officers, occultists, and Freemasons.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And this guy was the face of NASA.
Yeah, he was.
Yeah.
Which is nuts.
I mean, we're fortunate that Operation Paperclip allowed us to get some of the best engineers in the world at the time, which were Nazis.
The Nazis had mastered rockets.
Rockets are a really hard thing to master.
And they developed liquid engines that no one else had developed yet.
And so, for us to be able to get that data back from them and bring them over here, we literally, the first thing that took anything into space for the US was literally based on the V 2 missile that the Nazis built.
We called it the Redstone Rocket and put some.
Red, white, and blue America on it, but for all intents and purposes, it's a V2.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And this guy was running concentration camps with having Jews build these rockets and like hanging the slowest ones from caves from the ceilings of these warehouses.
And then, you know, a couple years later, he's in the US running NASA.
It's just crazy, dude.
Yeah, there's some very, very dark truths in history to the start of the space program, really.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I mean, same with on the Soviet side, you know, a lot of these guys, a lot of the people.
Building those rockets, yes, yes, themselves even spent time in the gulag.
Like, I mean, it was, it was a yeah, desperate times, I would say.
And this was a leading technology that imagine that high ground of space.
Of you know, imagine like if you have a cannonball or something, you can maybe launch it a hundred miles or something, right?
Cool, and like it's not very accurate, so you might actually, you know, run over a village.
But the Nazis were able to develop the V1 and then the V2 where they could bomb, you know, hundreds of miles.
Quite accurately and actually hit targets undetected.
You couldn't see it.
By the time you saw it, it's too late.
You're done.
You have no defense against this thing.
Imagine that kind of power to be able to scare your enemies with that.
And as soon as you couple that then with the nuclear warhead, game over.
And that's what the US did.
They needed that.
We felt like we needed that power to be able to have, because we had to fly a nuclear bomb, two nuclear bombs over to Japan.
We had to fly in airspace.
They could have been intercepted and shot down, and who knows that history.
Putting that on a rocket that was unshootable, downable, and undetectable until it's literally, oh crap, done.
So that's kind of what the whole thing started, just purely as an arms race.
Yes, yes.
And then we had Jean von Neumann, who, like one of the most genius mathematical minds in history, was used to calculate the exact altitude they needed to detonate Fat Man and Little Boy to cause the most catastrophe, kill the most people.
Yeah, dark.
That's the Cold War.
Really, really, really dark.
Yeah, really sad.
I mean, that's the part.
Like, I mean, to be completely frank, I rarely do think about that kind of stuff because I'm in love with the exploration side of things.
I'm in love with humans going and exploring.
And I really do think it's a uniting thing.
I really do think, even when I see, you know, China right now is pushing to get to the moon by 2030, like, that's their landing target right now 2030, China's going to have humans on the moon.
I love that.
Let's go.
Let's get, let's do it.
Let's get a new race going.
This is exciting.
This is tangible stuff.
And so I don't know.
I focus on that stuff.
And I did, before I forget, too, before we totally move off of the Von Braun, that video from 1955 and other things.
The other one that is quoted a lot was that book that he wrote.
I think it was around the same time, 1952.
I actually do have.
Art quoted his book.
Art quoted his book.
And he says he has it.
I have it as well.
I bought that book.
I looked it up and I couldn't find it.
It's an old one.
I should have brought it with me.
I really, I have it all.
What was the name of it?
Great question.
Just search Von Braun's books and we'll see.
Actually, it might have been 1949 or 19.
Like it was very early on.
And if you read just even a paragraph before the one that Bart quotes, he's talking about trying to land bulldozers on the moon.
It's none of those yet.
Conquest of the Moon?
Yeah, or First Men on the Moon, 1960, I think.
Or, yeah, or maybe Conquest of the Moon, one of those two.
But First Men to the Moon, 1960.
Okay.
God, he wrote so many books.
He wrote a lot.
But he's talking about trying to get like excavators, bulldozers.
All these things on a direct ascent to the moon.
So he's talking about literally launching, staging, and then landing without like another staging or rendezvous and all these things.
Orion Capsule Shakedown Mission00:07:41
So he's talking about trying to land like a thousand tons on the moon or something.
Again, very Starship esque.
Because if you kind of break it down to its roots, that's, and it's talking about colonizing the moon.
He's talking about, you know, way bigger things.
What we ended up doing is basically trying to do the path of least resistance.
And that ended up still at the time being building by far the largest rocket that had ever been built at the time, the Saturn V, by far the most powerful rocket, the most ambitious thing ever built at the time.
And now, you know, if we were to do that again, we'd be like, well, why?
We're just repeating 1960s technology.
So we're trying to do it today in a sustainable way using 21st century technology.
And most importantly, trying to do it where it could potentially be sustainable.
And the only cost is the propellant, the only real cost.
Right.
Ladies and gents, the day has finally come where you can use the power of red light to regrow your hair.
And you can save some serious cash by using our promo code.
The iRestore Elite is clinically proven to help regrow hair using 300 lasers and 200 LEDs that send light therapy directly to your scalp.
In a double blind clinical study, nearly every participant saw an increase in hair growth with this technology.
The iRestore Elite uses Vixo lasers that feature wider beams of red light wavelengths that reactivate dormant follicles to regrow your natural hair.
And the LEDs provide a broader, uniform coverage to fill in the gaps.
And it all comes with a gorgeous money back guarantee.
It's comfortable, it's lightweight.
I don't feel goofy wearing it.
In fact, my biggest problem is everyone wants to try it on for themselves.
And I've talked about red light on this podcast many times before, so this technology is very reassuring.
For maximum effect, Bundle it with the Revive Plus Max Growth Kit and Biotin Gummies, which works perfectly with the red light wavelengths.
And if you've been waiting for the right time to upgrade your hair routine, the President's Day sale is it.
iRestore is offering big savings right now with the code DANIY JONES at irestore.com, and you'll get an exclusive discount on the iRestore Elite.
That's code DANIY JONES at the letter I R E S T O R E.com.
Please support our show and tell them we sent you.
Give your hair the upgrade it's been waiting for.
And okay, so back to this Artemis mission.
So, are they, how many times are they going to have to refuel this thing?
So, Artemis 2, which is what's flying on February 6th.
In two weeks.
In two weeks, is just, it's only, so they're splitting it up into two things now.
Instead of putting the lunar lander on the same rocket like Saturn V did, they're just sending up the crew capsule.
This crew capsule is bigger, it's about 50% bigger, has a toilet, which is something the Apollo program did not have.
They had to use bags.
Gross.
Really?
Yeah.
I never even thought about that.
Yeah.
But he had room to do communion when he got there.
Pretty as chalice.
Oh, yeah.
Gotta stick to those traditions, baby.
Goddamn Freemasons.
But the Artemis, so the Orion capsule is what the Artemis program is using instead of the Apollo capsule.
It's about 50% bigger.
That launches on its own rocket called SLS.
Now, there's a lot of people not stoked on that rocket and that vehicle because it's insanely expensive and it's just like caught up in all the bureaucracy because basically NASA was congressionally mandated to use as much space shuttle hardware as possible.
Like, literally, when I say space shuttle hardware, I mean, like, they're literally reusing the engines that flew on the space shuttle.
Really?
They're literally reusing the solid rocket boosters from the space shuttle because they didn't want to lose all these jobs.
You know, so it became like a jobs program of like space shuttle programs ending 2011.
Hey, you know, at first they looked at it as it was called the, it was called, oh my God, the Ares 1 and 2 for the Constellation or Ares 1 and 5 for the Constellation program.
And then that ended up being already way over, you know, way over budget, way behind target.
And they turned it into this other program that eventually became called the Artemis program.
And the rocket's called the SLS or the Space Launch System.
And it's cost roughly $3 billion a year for the last 10 years, 11 years.
And the Orion capsules cost almost the same for the last 15 years to make.
So we're talking about billions of dollars into this vehicle.
When again, so the frustration with a lot of the spaceflight community is they've received $30 billion so far.
They've had one test launch in 2022, went great, relatively great, with no humans on it.
And then this is the first time they're putting humans on it.
And they're doing it for 30 billion when the human lander, that's the huge massive landing part that also has to go out to the moon, do all the things, is getting three billion dollars.
And it's like gonna be docking a little tin can up against this apartment complex in space to be able to get the crew into that.
Like they have to send the plan is to send the crew out to the moon on Orion.
This is Orion 2?
Yep.
So Artemis 2.
Artemis 2 first is just a lunar flyby.
So they're just circling the moon?
They're going out on a free return trajectory, basically a figure eight around the moon, similar to Apollo 8.
Are they gonna be in lunar orbit?
They will not be in lunar orbit.
And that's because the SLS rocket, because it's using space shuttle parts, has a, and the Orion capsule being so much bigger, has a relatively small service module.
So, you know, the Apollo command module is, you know, the Apollo capsule, and then the service module is that bigger part.
This is almost the opposite in terms of performance.
So, it's a bigger, instead of being a little command module with a big service module, it's a big command module with a little service module.
So, the only orbit it can get to around the moon is a highly elliptical orbit.
So, they chose an orbit that's called near rectilinear halo orbit.
It's a very unique orbit.
It has a lot of compromises.
And the biggest reason is just because Orion and its service module don't have the performance to really go into a low lunar orbit.
But this first mission, they're not doing the near-rected linear halo orbit.
They're just doing basically a full checkout, flying around the moon.
They'll actually travel furthest from Earth than any other human ever.
So that'll be exciting.
And I mean, in general, this whole thing is exciting.
How far past the moon will they go, do you think?
Oh, I should know this because it's coming up in two weeks and I'm going to be streaming the whole thing at Kennedy Space Center.
Like, I'm going to be there watching it.
Are you really?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
We will be plugged right in.
Across like three hours from here.
Yep.
Yep.
Well, we have a 4K production trailer and we'll be tied right into the 4K pad cameras.
Whoa.
Yeah.
I mean, we'll have all access to all the feeds and everything.
And will you have access to that for the whole mission?
Oh, yeah.
Not the whole mission.
We probably, they'll be streaming and all that stuff, but we'll only have pad access during the launch.
Yeah.
Okay.
I see.
Yep.
But they are flying on Apollo.
So Artemis 2, this is talking about Gateway, which is another part of the, that is talking about the near-reactive Halo orbit.
Artemis 2, I think it's something like 420 kilometers.
420,000 kilometers.
420,000 kilometers.
Yeah, something around there.
Apollo never really got more than 400.
I think Apollo 13 was technically the furthest.
Yeah, so it's a little beyond that as well.
So I find that exciting because, like, let's do it.
Let's get humans back to the moon.
They'll fly around and through portions of the Van Allen radiation belts, just like Apollo had to.
So we'll see that all again.
And yeah.
And so, what is the purpose of Artemis 2?
Basically, a shakedown of the Orion capsule.
A crude to test the capsule.
Test the capsule, make sure all the life support works, the communication systems work, the toilet works, make sure it has its own solar arrays instead of having a built in fuel cell like the Apollo program did.
It has a lot of different systems and it's doing things in a new way.
And even like digital avionics, it has actual computers on board as opposed to the big old school, you could almost call them in aviation, call them like steam gauges.
The Apollo capsule is full of just hardware and very little.
Artemis 2 Life Support Tests00:12:04
Computer memory, famously, very little computer memory, computing power.
Yeah.
So, this is a modern, you know, modern avionics, and it's going to be a full shakedown.
They did an uncrewed test in 2022, and this will be the first time humans fly on it, though, with all like an all up shakedown of the whole thing.
And it's kind of, it's always been in the plan actually to do that first, but it is a little bit of a shame that we are still a ways away from the lunar lander being ready.
Yeah.
And that's because the lunar lander's only had about three or four years now since the contract started.
So, like, they have had this SLS rocket and Orion, they've been working on it for, you know, 15 and 11 years at snail's pace because they're just like getting just trickling just enough money to keep all the contractors happy.
And I'm happy to be frustrated with the bureaucracy of that program.
I don't think that's some grand conspiracy per se or a reason that we can't physically do it.
It's just the reality of like how Congress set up the and kind of how NASA has to react to Congress's budgets and Congress's mandates about.
Again, like when you know Alabama, for instance, was freaking out that they're going to lose you know 40,000 jobs in their district when the shuttle program ended, of course, you're going to have you know members of Congress standing up for their communities saying this is going to gut our entire town.
You know, same with Titusville, like Titusville went from they lost 30,000 jobs in one day basically when the shuttle program ended.
Wow, yeah, I just learned recently that Alabama is the real NASA headquarters, is in Alabama, not Florida.
I always thought it was Kennedy Space Center.
Yeah, Alabama is huge with, it starts with an M. Montgomery?
No.
Oh my gosh.
Why am I blanking on this?
The town?
It's Huntsville.
Huntsville.
Yes, Yep.
But I'm blanking on the, oh my gosh, the actual name of the center there.
But yeah, you have Marshall.
I think that's Marshall.
Marshall Flight Center.
Marshall Flight Center?
Yeah, or Marshall Space Center.
You have, no, that's not, what am I doing?
What's the name of NASA Alabama headquarters?
See, we'll find it eventually.
But you have Houston, of course, famously is big.
The actual tech called NASA headquarters is in DC.
But that's just, you know, again, kind of the Redstone Arsenal.
Redstone Arsenal.
Well, that's the Army portion.
But the Marshall.
Okay, it is Marshall Space Flight.
Marshall Space Flight.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So it is Marshall.
Okay.
God, I'm not totally losing my mind.
But yeah, Johnson in Houston.
You have JPL out in California.
You know, there's Jack Parsons Laboratories.
Exactly.
But yeah, you have a handful of.
You have a handful of space flight centers, but the one in Alabama is actually a very big one down in Louisiana where they're building the tanks, the orange fuel tank that was part of the space shuttle.
You know, that big orange tank that was like slung on the side of the space shuttle.
That was built at Michoud in Louisiana.
And, you know, that was another one.
It's like that's going to shutter a whole community if we stop building hardware here, if NASA stopped building the space shuttle.
So, kind of the frustration with SLS is that, yes, it's all derived from space shuttle hardware.
To keep as many of the contractors and as many people.
And people call it the Senate Launch System, you know, instead of the Space Launch System.
And they call it a jobs program, which you could rightfully argue it is.
And it's the last, one of the last pieces of large launch that is still cost plus contracting as opposed to fixed price contracting.
So, cost plus is where you say, hey, we need to land a rover on Mars.
We've never done it this big.
It's going to, we need it to be a ton.
It has to do all this stuff.
You ask a bunch of vendors, how much do you think that'll, you know, how much do you think that'll cost?
They all kind of put it in their bid.
You choose someone, but you also say, like, hey, I know this bid might, you know, might be wrong.
So, like, whatever it costs, just let us know.
Send us the bill, basically.
Right.
Right.
That's cost plus.
That's how the Saturn V was built.
That's how NASA's always operated, traditionally with cost plus contracting.
And that's how the military works.
It's like we don't necessarily, when you're pushing the boundaries, you don't necessarily know how much something's going to cost.
You might have a rough idea, but you'll run into so many, like, you're going to run into a lot of problems.
You're going to run into a lot of like, we had no idea this was going to cost us much, or this took four times longer.
So we had to employ these people for four more years or whatever.
So that's cost plus.
Famously, then, the reason that SpaceX is, Is kind of well known and how they work with NASA.
NASA started doing the commercial crew program and the commercial resupply contracts.
So they basically said, Hey, we have a fixed amount of money.
If you can, we'll sign a couple people up to try to, you know, if you can send crew and cargo up to the International Space Station, we'll give you this amount of money, but no more.
So if you can't do it for that amount of money, you're going to lose money.
A pretty, you know, pretty seems like a no brainer.
It's on you.
It's still can, and it really, you know, gets competitive.
And one of the reasons then that, So, SpaceX won, was it $3 billion for the commercial crew program?
And Boeing received almost double that, or almost $5 billion.
Whoa.
And SpaceX launched their first crew in 2020, and it was two.
Their names were Bob and Doug.
They flew in 2020.
They went to the International Space Station.
Since then, they've flown, I think, we're on crew 13, right?
Or crew 12.
So they've flown almost 20 crew because there's also been private missions now that have flown on Dragon and with SpaceX.
Meanwhile, Boeing has only flown two people.
To the International Space Station and famously got stuck up there, and they did not, the crew did not return from the International Space Station on that Boeing spacecraft.
Oh, yes.
That was a commercial one.
That was a commercial launch.
Oh, my God.
I didn't even realize that.
How long were they up there for?
And Elon rescued them, right?
Well, in a sense, Elon rescued them.
And the fact that they basically, the next SpaceX one that was on schedule, they left two seats open.
Ah, okay.
So, yeah, Elon did argue that, like, we can send it anytime.
I mean, it's SpaceX.
They're, like, a well oiled machine.
Sure.
But they didn't, they realized like the trade was, hey, we can have these guys up there for eight and a half months.
No big deal.
That's as opposed to six.
Do you imagine?
That's actually not no big deal for us.
Just we'll see in eight months, just stranded in space.
Well, it was supposed like a six month would be a normal actually.
I mean, their thing was supposed to only be about two weeks, so eight and a half months is a lot.
But as these astronauts had already, you know, flown to space, had been to the ISS, and a normal crew rotation is six months.
So that's like not that unheard of.
In fact, like Scott Kelly spent almost a year on the ISS.
So these aren't like it's not that unheard of.
And it just is a matter of like scheduling and stuff.
It makes sense just to.
Keep it on the same rotation so you don't screw up the whole entire International Space Station's crew rotation schedule just because you want to.
Just really inconvenient for those guys.
Yeah, but they're professional astronauts.
That's where they want to be.
Oh, I thought it was a.
They're still NASA astronauts.
Okay, I didn't realize they were actually NASA astronauts.
I thought they were just like tourists.
Nope, still NASA astronauts, but they were flying on the first Boeing Starliner mission.
Right.
So it just kind of puts into perspective a little bit like the complacency, I would say, of these.
Contractors that were used to the fixed price contract or to a cost plus contract now having to work in this fixed price contract model.
And SpaceX almost got laughed out of the room when they said, you know, because one of the reasons that Boeing got more money was for timeline assurance.
So this is like 2016.
And SpaceX got less money because they were the new kids on the block.
They had never flown anyone to space.
They ended up doing it by 2020, which was still considered behind schedule, but it's still quite aggressive.
But that was four years earlier than Boeing did.
So Boeing took twice as much time for twice as much money and still botched it.
You know, and it's like it just shows a little bit of that the bureaucracy, the slow portions of some of the spaceflight that I'm still frustrated with that is changing.
And NASA's moving more and more into these fixed price contracts, including in the Artemis program.
It's split down the middle.
This SLS and Orion is cost plus.
The human landing systems, so the actual lunar landers, are fixed price and they're commercial.
So even the Artemis program is kind of divided down the middle right now.
Yeah.
Which is good.
I want us to move more towards that fixed price that'll open up the commercial environment.
Yep.
And it'll, you know, we've seen how that works.
And so far, for some people, it's gone really, really well.
I'm always so like, whenever I go to the East Coast for a couple of days, like for a surf trip or whatever, I'm always just stunned by like how many launches there are at Kennedy Space Center.
It'd be like, just like random, like you never even hear of them.
It's just like, oh, there's a rocket going off today at 8 p.m. or whatever time it is.
And it's like, what's this one for?
And it just seems like just a routine, everyday thing.
It's become extremely routine now.
And, I can't imagine how many freaking satellites they have up there right now.
It's got to look like just hornets surrounding a beehive or something like that.
Yeah, there's over 10,000.
I think there's 11,300 or something active satellites right now.
And that goes up by about 50 every week at this rate.
And it's astonishing they don't run into each other.
Yeah.
Well, that's the beautiful thing about spaceflight it's actually predictable.
You know, there's no disturbances that are going to alter the trajectory of a It's in an orbit.
You can predict it for the next six months.
Because there's no wind, there's no air resistance, there's no anything reacting against it unless it fires a thruster or something to change its trajectory.
It's going to be doing the same thing forever.
I mean, eventually, in low Earth orbit specifically, there's still trace amounts of atmosphere.
The atmosphere doesn't just end at space.
Sure.
100 kilometers is a gradient.
It's a gradient, exactly.
And so, even in low Earth orbit at 500 kilometers, You're still running into a couple molecules every now and then.
And that actually does slowly slow you down.
The slower you get, the lower your orbit starts to get.
And eventually it cascades because now you're lower, more molecules, lower, more, you know.
And all of a sudden it goes from like this to all of a sudden, and you just like get sucked in and re enter.
And so for the most part, though, we catalog and track every single object.
And so although it might look terrifying when you see these, you know, animations of thousands and thousands of satellites, most of them are about the size of this table.
And they're tens or 20 kilometers apart from each other because they're also, you have all these different orbital altitudes as well.
Yeah, right, exactly.
Just like planes, there's 50,000 planes in the sky right now, or whatever the number is.
There's a ton of planes in a smaller area with smaller altitude variations.
And how often do planes actually run into each other?
Right.
Almost never.
I'm not going to say never, but.
Right, yeah, that's a good point.
Especially when they're in the pattern and they're in there, they're going from point A to point B and they're at their altitudes, no big deal.
Right.
You know, and space is, it's, Bigger and even more predictable in that manner.
Yeah, that's a good point.
I never thought about it that way.
The plane thing's funny.
We were looking at that the other day.
When you look at the map of all the planes flying around, they show the map, but then they show the planes.
But the size of the plane would be the scale of a mothership or something like that.
Because you can't even see the map underneath all the little planes they put on the map.
Because they have to scale them so you can.
They have to scale them.
Right, like that.
There you go.
Exactly.
Yeah.
And the same thing happens with satellites.
The plane is like the size of fucking New Jersey or something.
Yeah, exactly.
And same with all these maps of satellites and stuff.
You have to scale them so you can physically see them.
And if you zoom in, they become inconsequential.
Sequentially small, you know, to that degree.
So, same thing.
I mean, we're, this is the new era of like, we have space flight now has been opened up with the commercial, in the commercial world.
And it's happening.
Like, all the future things that we all dreamt about that Von Braun was talking about in the 50s, like, we're finally catching up to that kind of capability.
Von Braun Early Space Travel Ideas00:02:01
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's crazy that, you know, the Nazis pioneered rocket science, right?
And they were also so obsessed with the occult.
And Atlantis and these bizarre mysteries and myths, you know?
Yeah.
And yet we get rocket science from them.
Yeah.
Well, rocket science itself, the science, like Tsiolkovsky or whatever, the rocket equation was Russian.
We had Goddard over here in the US, who actually technically is the father of liquid propulsion, but it was very low power liquid propulsion.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe until Jack Parsons, scientists didn't even believe we could propel a rocket through space.
I don't know about that because they thought that there was nothing to push against in the void in the space.
They thought that it wouldn't work, and he was the first one to.
I don't know.
Wasn't Jack Parsons quite a bit later?
Like, wasn't he like 40s, 50s, 60s, like in that era of history as opposed to because the rocket equation was, I think.
Yeah, he died in 52.
He died in 52.
Okay.
Okay.
Yeah, so he was a little bit earlier.
I mean, I think the idea of like, I mean, Von Braun wrote papers and stuff when he was a kid talking about space travel and things like that.
Yeah, but using rockets.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
So he was part of like rocket clubs and stuff.
And, you know, before the SS and all, you know, before all the Nazi stuff.
And unfortunately, with his political climate, like he was offered either you die or you start building us these rockets, basically.
Right.
And he chose to build rockets.
And I think his goal, you know, according to his writings as a young person, was to always explore.
Mm hmm.
But the means in which he ended up ever building them was for war.
Yeah.
And from a horrible regime, as we know.
But yeah, I mean, I think people understood that rockets would work in space for a long time because it's recoil.
Nazi Rocket Building History00:06:00
A rocket is a gun.
You know, it's like my favorite thing to think about is like how an A 10 Warthog, you know, when it's flying, have you ever seen the Gatling gun on an A 10 Warthog?
Probably, but I can't believe it.
It's like a gun that sounds like it.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It fires like 4,000 rounds per.
Per minute, something around there.
It's like an absolutely absurd amount of ammunition.
It fires so much ammunition and so fast that it literally slows the jet down.
The jet has two jet engines, and the Gatling gun on the front produces as much thrust as one of those jet engines.
Wow.
So it actually slows down.
Oh, okay.
So when the A 10 Warhawk fires and holds the trigger down, they can't hold it down too long because they can actually slow the plane down too much and they can alter its handling characteristics and everything.
So they have to be mindful.
And that's all a rocket engine is.
It's expelling mass.
It's shooting mass, mass flow, propellant as fast as possible.
Supersonic, you know.
And they're shooting it out as the faster you throw mass, the more reaction it has against you.
Right.
So that's all a rocket engine is.
And so that's why we developed these incredible engines.
Like SpaceX now famously has a Raptor engine, it's called.
And it's the world's first flown full flow stage combustion engine where it's so advanced.
They're using all of the propellant basically to not only spin the pumps and power the pumps that suck the gas out, the propellant out of the tanks and shoves it into the combustion chamber as high of pressure as possible.
So that the higher pressure in the chamber, the more you can expand it through that nozzle to speed it up out the nozzle.
So they're basically just using that to cram it together.
You choke it down.
There's a throat, or you call it the D-Lavell nozzle.
It converges and then diverges.
And what's happening is you're taking that high-pressure gas.
The higher pressure it is, the more you can expand it out the nozzle.
Right.
When I talk about this stuff, sorry, it takes me normally an hour to explain.
I have an hour-long video on how these pumps and stuff like that work.
Right, right, right.
So I'll try to keep it succinct for you.
But that's all they're doing: they're shooting mass out the back.
And it's an equal and opposite reaction, just like a fire hose, too.
You know, a fire hose doesn't push against a firefighter because the water's hitting the air and pushing the air, and that air pushes back on the hose.
Right.
It's literally the mass flowing out of the nozzle is what's pushing equal and opposite to the fireman.
Right.
And against the hose.
So, and the same with the recoil of a gun.
It's not the bullet hitting the air that makes the gun shoot back at you.
If you take a gun into space, it's still going to have recoil.
Right.
Because it's shooting the mass in the equal and opposite.
So the equal and opposite reaction happens to you.
That's all rockets are.
So.
You know, they work, they actually work better in a vacuum because there's less resistance and you can actually do more expansion out of the nozzle as well.
So it just, I don't know, it feels like such a crude way to get off the earth, you know, like shooting a gun or firing a cannon just to get off the earth.
It feels like, you know, with all the money and the private aerospace organizations that are just throwing billions of dollars at this stuff, you would think that they could come up with like a different.
A different way without just incinerating tons of fuel, yeah.
You know, there's been proposals for like, uh, like there's been an Orion, uh, not the Orion spacecraft we're about to see, but the Orion launch vehicle was that idea to literally drop nuclear bombs, yeah, and then have it just like pogo stick your way into orbit.
Like that was a halfway seriously conceived idea.
I remember that.
There's also been like, there's a company now called Spin Launch that wants to spin up a rocket inside a centrifuge and then yeet it out of the.
You know, like spinning up like a catapult basically.
However, it's spinning so fast and it's so big that the rocket itself inside that centrifuge is a vacuum.
They have to produce a vacuum so it's not sitting there.
It produces 10,000 G's on the rocket while it's in the centrifuge.
That's explosive.
Yeah.
And this is who is doing this?
Spin launch.
They've built a one third scale demonstrator that was, I believe, 100 meters wide.
Smokes, dude.
Is this real or is this AI right here?
That one's real.
That's their demonstrator.
So it's a third scale demonstrator.
And where do they want to send this rocket?
They just want to be able to launch payloads and things like that.
So they're trying to make it cheaper because, you know, just like you're asking, can you believe we're still wasting all this propellant?
They're like, what if we just spun a giant motor?
But the problem is there's a few problems, but now you're going 3,000 miles an hour or whatever at sea level.
So just as soon as you open up that hatch and eject, like you're.
Experiencing an insane amount of air resistance and heating from compression of the air around it.
So, like, you have all these, you got 10,000 G on the vehicle while it's in the centrifuge.
Like, this will never be used for humans.
It might be useful for propellant refueling, could be an option because, whatever, propellant doesn't care if it's 10,000 G for the most part.
But it's a unique system.
I'm not necessarily the biggest fan, and I don't know if it'll ever.
It seems so primitive, dude.
This is, yeah, this is almost like this is as ooga booga as lighting a bunch of stuff on fire to get it to space.
Like, this is like, what if we just threw it?
Right, right.
Yeah.
Create a slingshot, right?
A billion dollar slingshot.
Essentially, yep.
I have a whole video on like why don't we throw rockets basically?
And at the end of the day, you realize like you can spend a lot of money, a lot of effort, and a lot of infrastructure for like one or two percent gain.
You know, it's like just make a little bit bigger rocket, right?
It's always conventionally been always the easier of the two evils.
Valentine's Day is right around the corner, and that special dinner you plan on cooking ain't going to impress anybody if it's scraped out of the bottom of warped pots that burn more food than it cooks.
Blue Lotus Gummies for Relaxation00:02:33
And that's why I'm obsessed with hex clad, they bridge the gap between the ease of ceramic non stick.
And stainless steel performance by combining it all into one pan.
It sears like a propan and nothing gets welded to the bottom.
I swear, it's so crazy.
This morning I was cooking eggs for one of my kids, and the difference between this pan and my old pans is astonishing.
When you crack an egg in there with just a little bit of butter, the egg floats around in there like anti gravity.
There's no scraping it off with a spatula.
It's incredible.
They're heavy, they look incredible, and they feel like quality when you pick them up.
They're metal utensil safe, dishwasher safe, oven safe up to 900 degrees.
And the handle stays cool when you're cooking.
Because of the non stick in the hex pattern, cleanup takes about 10 seconds.
And with over a million customers and 50,000 five star reviews, it's no secret why Gordon Ramsay loves hex clad and uses it in his home as well as his restaurants.
Plus, everything comes with a lifetime warranty.
So, this is literally the last cookware you'll ever need to buy.
Don't let another Valentine's Day pass without having the best cookware on the planet.
For a limited time only, our listeners can get 10% off your order with our exclusive link.
Just go to hexclad.com slash Danny Jones.
Support our show and check them out at h e x c l a d.com forward slash Danny Jones.
Make sure you let them know we sent you.
Bon appetit.
Let's cook with Hexclad's revolutionary cookware.
I've been taking Amantara's Blue Lotus gummies for a couple months now, and I'll be the first to tell you it's way more than just a better version of cannabis.
Blue Lotus effects are misunderstood because most people either took too little, Or they tried some diluted money grab product and wrote it off.
And that was me before I took Amentara.
I only have their blue lotus capsules right here, right now, and that's because I've already eaten all the gummies.
Imagine the warmest, gentle, happy state you've ever been in.
It's a mood lift, not a high.
For me, it's far less intense than marijuana.
It gives me a mild, warm, floaty feeling.
It helps me sleep harder and I have more vivid dreams, and weirdly enough, it's kind of like a libido enhancer.
Like with their Amanita mushrooms, Amentara handles proper extraction, real dosing.
Real effects.
In fact, Blue Lotus is their second most popular product.
If you actually want to feel it, I'd recommend Amentar's Blue Lotus Extract Gummies.
Take a few gummies at once, give it some time, and you'll feel this warm, relaxing effect wash over you.
It's connective, and like I said, it makes dreams wildly vivid.
For a lot of people, it's great for winding down at night, intimacy, or even as a clean alcohol alternative.
Tim's UFO Alien Experiences00:14:45
Dosing is easy.
Start low and work your way up gradually, seeing how your body responds to it.
Don't write this plan off because of past experiences.
Real Blue Lotus done right is powerful.
And if you want to try it, this is the move.
Go to amantara.comslash goslash DJ and use my code DJ22 for 22% off your first order.
That's spelled A M E N T A R A dot com slash go slash DJ and use the code DJ22 for 22% off.
It's linked down below.
Now back to the show.
Well, dude, I think the aerospace companies have some different kind of propulsion figured out that's like black, but they're not letting it be public.
Which ones?
Have you seen?
I mean, I'm sure you've heard of like Commander David Fravor and Ryan Graves and these Navy pilots.
I watched recently the Age of Disclosure.
Uh huh.
Have you seen that one?
I have.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I love that stuff.
I'm fascinated by it.
So, did you see the article the New York Times put out in 2017?
Probably.
Pull up that article, Steve.
I always forget the title of it.
But basically, it was laying out what happened with Commander David Fravor, who was a top, top level Navy fighter pilot who was flying off the coast of San Diego.
And he describes this tic tac shaped object.
You've heard of that?
Mm hmm.
And he described it as moving from like thousands of feet above sea level to like a foot in less than a second or something like that.
Right.
As well as like the thing was showing up at its cap points before he even knew where his cap point was.
And all this bizarre stuff.
And like it was on radar, it was recorded on radar, but a couple guys came in, they confiscated his radar, all that video, when he got back to the aircraft carrier and all that.
And it wasn't just him.
Bunch of guys that saw this stuff and picked it up.
They noticed it right when they upgraded the radar on their jets.
And for some reason, they were picking this shit up and it was just like defying anything.
They were like, if there were human beings in this thing, they would have been turned to liquid because it was moving so fast.
Crushed.
Yeah.
I think it's possible that that's just like secret black budget stuff.
You know, there's like billions of dollars missing from the Pentagon.
Right.
Right.
I'm sure that money has gone to like secretive war technology.
Right.
And people that have the contracts for that are companies like Boeing, Lockheed, those kinds of companies.
Northrop.
Northrop, right.
Exactly.
Yep.
And I don't disagree with anything you're saying.
I think it's possible that they could have been testing some sort of black technology against our highest level Navy fighters, you know?
Yeah.
Because, I mean, those guys are the tip, top, tip of the spear when it comes to psychologically sound people.
Right.
They're constantly tested, going through psychiatric tests.
It's like fighter pilots and the dudes who run nuclear launch sites.
Yeah.
They have to be like tip top psychologically sound folks.
So the fact that these guys were coming out and it was in this New York Times article in 2017, that's when it kind of blew the lid off of all this stuff.
Listen, inject this stuff into my veins.
I love this stuff and I want to believe that we have, especially if it's like alien technology.
Please sign me up.
I still abide by the great claims require great evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is great.
I want this stuff.
I want this stuff to keep coming out because I would love to learn more about this.
There's a very decent chance it might not even be alien technology, might be the psyops to keep you from learning what they're actually doing or what they've actually discovered or what they've actually engineered.
I mean, again, if we had the top engineers at the time were developing rockets and that was like the secret holy grail of delivering a nuclear payload to someone, that was 70, 80, almost 90 years ago now.
Of course, we're doing crazy things now today that people.
The public doesn't know about.
And it might be stuff that can travel at these insane rates, and they might be bending space time.
That would be awesome.
Like, I just hope it doesn't obliterate all of us before we get to learn what it is, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, no, I think that, I mean, there's just so much evidence.
I sent you a video yesterday from my friend Jesse Michaels, who posts, he has a channel that covers all of this stuff.
And he's like a wizard on the history of the space program, NASA, all these physicists from like the Cold War and before who were studying anti gravity.
There's Thomas Townsend Brown.
Jack Parsons, all these guys that are working on this stuff, like this anti gravity stuff in North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
These are people that are tied into legitimate space programs and like being funded by like the highest levels of NASA, CIA, all this stuff to do like crazy physics, right?
And one of the guys that Jesse was pointing out in that video is a guy who's been working for NASA for over 40 years, since the 80s, who is who wrote that book called Launch Fever.
Okay.
And he is allegedly the mission controller at NASA or SpaceX.
Yeah.
I couldn't find anyone named Timothy T. He's a ghost.
But he founded a company called, I think, Vivex, which is a medical, a biomedical company.
That was in like 2007 or something.
And he sold it for like $80 million or something recently.
Okay.
Anyways, this guy, this guy right here, where is this website?
This is theorg.com.
I don't know.
It popped up in the org.
I just searched for Tim Taylor.
Okay.
Tim the Toolman Taylor.
Why don't you go to his bio on.
Oh, wait.
Look.
It talks about Vivex right there.
So there was a lady, Diana Pisoka, who wrote this book called American Cosmic.
She's a professor of religious studies in North Carolina.
And she studies, you know, like.
Catholicism and Christianity and the history of all that stuff.
And a couple of her friends came up to her and she was like, Hey, have you ever paid attention to this UFO stuff?
She's like, No, why?
And they're like, Oh, because there's a lot of parallels between like the Bible and these texts and like UFO lore.
Like, look into it.
Check this out.
She looked into it or whatever.
And long story short, she got connected with a guy named Gary Nolan out of Stanford, I think.
I could be wrong.
Somewhere in California.
And this guy, Tim, who was, she made his name pseudonymous in her book because he, Didn't allow her to do it.
Eventually, like, Redditors did the deep dive and found out who he was to kind of expose his name.
But this guy, Tim, took them out, like, blindfolded her and took her out to this place in New Mexico or Nevada or somewhere and found some alloys or metals with this crazy isotope ratio that wasn't from Earth.
And this guy, Gary Nolan, who's a scientist, a legit scientist in California, analyzed them and, like, did all this crazy microscopic micro testing on it and, like, found out the isotope ratios are, like, clearly this stuff's not from Earth.
And this guy Tim has this crazy background in rocketry and rocket science and biomedical stuff, mission controller.
And this guy Tim also is like popping up in all the lives of these crazy UFO experiencers.
Like all these crazy guys, like this guy Whitley Strieber, who wrote Communion, which is like one of the craziest sci fi fantasy alien books that got turned into a movie of all time, showed up in his life, showed up in this guy Chris Bledsoe's life.
All these people who like claim to have these wacky, like out there alien contact experiences.
This guy Tim shows up in their lives to their houses, interviews them, and asks some questions like, okay, tell me what they looked like.
Okay, what was this?
What was that?
Like, really interested in all this stuff.
And like, also kind of like leads them down the path to like solidifying what happened.
Not like, hey, you're, you know, this is what you experienced.
Like, like, like, okay, like this is real.
Like, This is okay.
This is what happened.
Then he pulls out a briefcase full of these crazy alloys and goes, Hold this, hold that.
He took Chris Bledsoe to NASA to watch, to Kennedy Space Center to watch one of the launches, brought him into the main control room headquarters where civilians can't go.
And he was a part of his life for many, many years, visiting him and his family, going to his kids' football games.
And it's just crazy to me how this guy, who's deep in the Department of Defense and NASA and stuff, like, Legitimately, nuts and bolts, like hardcore scientist, is also showing up in the lives of these like crazy woo UFO alien experiencers.
You know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I also find that interesting.
From what I just to be clear, from what I know, like I think your guess he had on the other day was like he's been launching all the NASA rockets for, you know, 40 years or whatever.
Well, first off, like NASA hardly launches their own rockets anymore.
It's almost all commercial programs nowadays.
But, but, Every mission director and launch director and stuff like that is all public record.
Like he looked like he had worked early on.
Oh, really?
Every mission controller, everyone, they're all public record.
They're all federal employees, you know?
So, yeah, you can find out who was the mission director on any of the missions and mission director and launch director, things like that is pretty easy to find.
And so I don't think this guy did any of the mission directing or launch directing.
It looked like he flew some payloads on shuttle.
Looks like he was part of the shuttle program kind of early on.
Okay.
That doesn't discredit some of the things.
I just want to clear up like when someone says, This guy has worked at NASA for 40 years and looked like he started a company in 2007 or whatever.
It's like he worked at NASA for a bit.
He flew some payloads on some space shuttle missions.
Again, just to be clear, I'm not trying to.
Right.
But so he also told this UFO experiencer who helped him with some of his patents and stuff like this that he gets his information from downloads that he gets.
And he claims it's from non human intelligence.
These downloads come to him.
Cool.
Right.
Sign me up for that too.
Yeah, this is, anyways, that's Jesse's interview with Blood.
So, and he also, that's a sick set too, by the way.
That is a badass set.
Jesse's got two incredible sets.
One's like a spaceship, and then this one's also like a sick looking, like 60s hardware.
Yeah, it's like a retro space looking set with the moon in the background.
Yeah, that's gorgeous.
And yeah, anyways, my point is stuff like what this guy Tim Taylor is saying seems to be like a pattern.
In the history of the space program, right?
With people like Jack Parsons and folks like that who are all like into this esoteric occult stuff.
And even Edgar Mitchell, right?
Like he came back from the moon.
He was super interested in like UFO lore.
He started the Institute of Noetic Sciences, was really into like ESP and telepathy and all that stuff when he came back.
And even what happened with.
With Neil Armstrong.
So he got back from the moon, and in 75, he went on this expedition in Ecuador on the edge of the Amazon rainforest to this Taos Cave.
And it was documented by the BBC on TV.
And the lore of this Teos cave that he went to was supposedly like the site it housed, like exotic alien metals or something like this.
And can you find out about that Teos cave?
Okay, there you go.
Neil Armstrong led a scientific expedition to the Teos cave in Ecuador's Amazon region.
Joined 100 people to explore the caves, rumoredly a legendary metal library of ancient artifacts.
So, yeah.
And then you combine that with all the Freemasons that are involved in it.
It's just like, it's a pattern.
It's clearly there's something else going on here other than just like nuts and bolts, hardcore material science.
Maybe, but that's the part that I talk about the hardcore nuts and bolts material science.
You know, that's definitely like more.
But have you ever run into any of that stuff in your research?
I haven't.
No.
I haven't.
No.
And, you know, I have a lot of friends that work in the aerospace industry that, and I.
I think the average person that works in the aerospace industry is pretty focused on their one project.
I have friends that work on the heat shield tiles on a program, others that do the wiring harness.
And I guess Sabrell even said something along the lines of when he said that 400,000 people were contracted basically to build the moon rocket and get humans to the moon.
There's, of course, truth that not everyone on every project that's physically sewing together a part of the spacesuit knows.
Everything about the whole program.
Of course.
And they wouldn't be told everything about the whole program.
There's no need for any of that.
So I understand where that comes from.
But I also don't know of anyone that's ever been like, yeah, like once you're behind the doors at SpaceX, you know, or once you're behind the doors at Lockheed Martin, we have these Freemasons, you know, like I've never heard anything like that at all.
But I don't know.
I stick to spaceflight hardware and spaceflight.
But I don't know.
That's outside of my realm.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's just super interesting to look into.
And, you know, obviously the Freemasonry shit is not that popular anymore.
I mean, I could see how it was like bigger back in the day.
It was less frowned upon, you know, when like during Apollo 11.
But it's so crazy.
There's still like a Freemason's, like a, yeah, Freemason's little like lodge or temple or thing or whatever, like a little thing like downtown in my hometown.
And I'm always like, I want to see, I want to go in there.
I want to become a Freemason and learn what all this is, you know?
Right.
Why aren't we all just doing that?
Then we can expose it.
Raw NASA Broadcast Tapes Quality00:15:44
Right.
Let's go find the one.
There's plenty of weird things around here.
Right, right.
Yeah, we're in the Scientology homeland.
That's why we got the little e meter here.
So, okay, back to the moon stuff.
Let me ask you this.
If you wanted to hypothetically, just a thought experiment here, if you wanted to steel man the idea that we didn't go to the moon, which arguments do you think?
Are the most compelling?
I think by far the one that resonates the most and the one that resonates with me that I'm most frustrated with is that we stopped going.
You know, that whole idea of we couldn't have gone because it's been 54 years since we went to the moon.
Obviously, that means we didn't go.
That resonates with me hard.
I totally get the frustration.
I understand the logic.
It does make sense.
You brought this up with Bart at the same time.
You know, it's the same thing of we used to have the Concord.
We no longer have the Concorde.
You know, the Concorde was a supersonic jet that could go twice the speed of sound, get you to New York and London in three and a half hours, and was amazing.
We don't have that.
It's not that we physically lost the ability to do so, we just don't have the economic driving factor to do so.
Totally.
We also, you know, when people say things like we lost the hardware to do it, and, you know, famously Don Pettit said something along the lines of we destroyed that capability.
Well, you don't physically destroy it.
Let's go through and just, you know, blow up this factory and stuff.
It's just that things evolve.
Just like you can't build, you know, if you told Ford, hey, rebuild the 1967 Mustang, exactly, like verbatim.
I want all your original machines back online.
I want all your employees that know how to do, you know, manual labor and mandrels and welding.
I want them all back in here.
I want you to make a, a, A line, a factory line of 1967 Ford Mustangs.
Right.
Because it's one of the greatest cars ever made.
Like, let's do it.
Good luck.
You will not build the same car.
It will not, in any way, shape, and form, you can't find those old, you know, mandrels.
You can't find the old machines, CNC machines.
Or, sorry, not even CNC machines.
You can't find, you know, any of the parts that were there to build any of the supply chain that they would get light bulbs from, that would get seat belts from, that they'd get steering.
You know, all of that stuff is shut down.
All the little micro technologies that went into that have all been changed, revolutionized.
A thousand times by.
Right, right, right.
In the same way that you can't rebuild the Saturn V rocket because all of the suppliers for all these little parts and these little things have all either been bought up by someone else, changed, used modern manufacturing techniques.
You'd be starting from scratch if you were to do it again that same way.
And so I understand the frustration of we did this thing 54 years ago and we lost that ability to do it, but we also spent $300 billion in today's money to get us there.
And the public, like I said, we had three other rockets and hardware built and the crew to do so.
And we just said, eh, not worth it.
Like, that's what I'm frustrated with.
So, steel manning the argument, that resonates with me very hardcore because I also agree.
Now, what about all the data being erased?
That one is so misconstrued.
Is it?
Oh, yeah.
The only data that was lost ever, period, from anything.
Is the original transmission of Apollo 11?
As soon as it was downlinked, it was split into two halves.
And so the first half got re recorded onto 25, I think 25 centimeter or 36 centimeter long, like big data tapes, right?
They're these old school magnetic tapes.
I think they're 25 millimeter thick.
And they're basically like giant cassette tapes, reel to reel.
They stored data, they stored video, they stored telemetry data.
It was all a direct backup in case the link to mission control went down.
Right.
So, if, so from that downlink, something happened and all of a sudden, because then from the downlink, like for instance, Goldstone, Australia was one of the receiving places.
Right.
It then had to get relayed to mission control in Houston for them to be able to receive the data.
So, if something happened in that link, in that chain, and Houston was no longer receiving data, and let's say there was a catastrophic problem with the spacecraft and they lost the crew, that was the only thing they had to be able to look at the raw data.
All of it was still being recorded in Houston.
All of the data, all the telemetry, all the video.
However, it wasn't the highest quality video because it wasn't on that raw.
What they were doing in order to transmit data or video data was basically, this is a common thing at the time, they were using a kinescope recorder where they're basically pointing a camera at a monitor.
Yeah, they wouldn't give all the TV stations their own feeds.
They made them all bring their cameras and shoot it at a monitor, right?
No, they actually distributed it for them.
So they would point the camera because it's using slow scan.
The camera type of system they were using to broadcast from the moon back was slow scan.
In order to get it onto national television, it had to be in NTSC format.
Which is actually kind of what we still use today, 2997.
And so, in order to even convert it, the easiest thing to do is literally take a monitor, kind of have this like enclosed box, and they literally film that monitor.
Right, right, right, right.
And the first time that they specifically did that on Apollo 11, it isn't good.
It's very poor connections.
It's not great, but it was good enough.
No one thought anything of it at the time.
And you're saying that that was common back then to do it that way?
Yeah, if you had to convert from slow scan to NTSC, that's just a good thing.
And who else would convert from slow scan to NTSC?
There were still other things that were slow scan, which just actually predates this new format for NTSC.
So I don't know a ton about broadcast video, but the standard that, for instance, in Europe, they use PAL 25.
Right.
Frames per second.
Here we use NTSC.
And I think just before that, as people were just trying to even get digital or analog, but not film, not replaying a film, you had, and even if you wanted to convert film and broadcast it on TV to actually use something along this kinescope process.
So, kinescope or whatever it's called.
And you're basically filming a monitor or in reverse filming a film and you can broadcast it that way.
So, you're just trying to get it broadcastable, basically, right?
Right.
So, they're taking this signal and because it had already gone out on air, everyone had the feed of the video.
There was no, and we had all the data.
These tapes that the backup tapes, you know, the raw data tapes weren't considered like this holy, you know, grail.
We have to hold on to these because these are so valuable.
They had everything.
They had all the video.
They filmed everything still with some 16 millimeter film cameras.
So the downstream was one side of one, when it downstreamed, it forked off into two feeds.
One was a raw sort of like backup feed, and the other one was just for people to, for other news stations to film so they could project.
And including even what was seen on the screens in NASA's headquarters.
In Houston, I mean, at Johnson Space Center, projections were all in that NTSC format.
So they also received, because it was good enough for them.
So what happened to the raw stuff though?
So they stored it in tapes.
They just took these tapes, they put them in pallets, and they threw them in some room, whereas relatively inconsequential, right?
Just like, oh, whatever, they're magnetic tapes.
And it got recorded over.
Eventually, in the 70s or 80s, they had a data storage shortage of these types of magnetic tapes.
And I want to be clear that only the backup data tapes.
Were the things that were lost?
There was still film, like 16 millimeter film recovered, you know, that the astronauts shot with them.
Like the cameras they bought personally to shoot film.
Yep.
Yeah.
All that raw film is still there.
100%.
Like people act like, oh, all we have is this recording of the screen and they threw away all the original tapes.
Like, no, this was the.
They didn't think they would ever have a world where they even needed these tapes because they had everything.
You know, they had the broadcast.
It's not like the broadcast went cold and they lost signal.
They're like, it would be great if we had that still.
You know, hold on to those tapes, make sure we have those backups because we had this 45 minute blackout because our dish went down or something.
They didn't have that.
So they didn't need, you know, like just like if you ever have backed up your hard drive on your computer, right?
There's people that have $40 million of Bitcoin on an old hard drive because they didn't think anything of it.
You know, you just whatever.
It's just not, it's not important right now until all of a sudden maybe, and they didn't imagine a world where we could take and rescan and up, you know, up res the hell out of that footage as well because it would have been a lot cleaner in that raw format.
Mm hmm.
And so they learned also that the Apollo 11 broadcast was not great.
So by Apollo 12, we saw incremental improvements.
13, 14, way better.
By 14, we're starting to do color even from the moon.
Color TV.
Has anyone ever taken that raw film from Apollo 11 that the astronauts had and tried to upscale it?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
The Apollo 11 movie that it's a documentary that timed it.
Oh, it's incredible.
It's unbelievable.
So a lot of that stuff res.
I was watching it wondering, is this just a recreation?
Or did they actually upscale the raw footage?
So, a lot, especially the ground stuff, is a lot of that 70mm, that's IMAX footage.
That's unbelievable.
Yeah, still to this day.
A clip from that Apollo 11 documentary, dude.
It looks like a modern movie because it's still one of the highest qualities of imagery you can get 70 millimeter IMAX.
That's why, you know, Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, they shoot on IMAX cameras a lot because it's still like some of the best.
They've been using that for that long.
Mm hmm.
Oh, yeah.
It's nutty, bro.
Yeah, 70 millimeter, baby.
It's.
I was like, these actors are phenomenal.
No, it's the real footage.
And it was a huge ordeal to be able to, you know, preserve it and recover it.
This is the original stuff.
This is the real.
It looks like a Christopher Nolan movie.
It really does.
If you haven't watched this in particular, it is absolutely outstanding.
I watched it last night.
Did you?
Really?
Oh my God.
Yeah.
So you understand how beautiful this is of a film.
And watching Charlie Duke sitting there, it's like, whoa.
You sat across the table.
You met that guy.
And there he is in Mission Control as Capcom.
Even that?
Yeah.
That's real?
That's real.
All of this is real.
Yes.
And so when people say they quote unquote lost the tapes, like, and they make it sound like they lost everything from the Apollo program, they lost one set of backup tapes from the straight.
Look at that fucking lighting.
I know.
It's unbelievable.
It's like, it's art.
As me, as someone that goes to these rocket launches today and tries to capture, you know, I've stood in this room.
This is the firing room.
Look at that shot right there.
That looks like it's on the set of a movie.
She was the only woman in the entire firing room, too, by the way.
Was she really?
Mm hmm.
Pretty crazy.
So, for me today, I've stood in that firing room with Elon Musk and at the time the NASA administrator and interviewed him.
And I'm sitting there going, I'm standing in this room.
I'm freaking out because I'm in this room where all this stuff has happened for the firing room.
And yeah, so when people say things just blanket, like we lost all the footage.
No, we didn't at all.
There's actually 11,000 hours of audio because every council had their own recording from every station.
You can hear every single station in Mission Control.
All the loops, all the commas back and forth.
So you have multiple channels of audio.
So it ends up being 11,000.
People question me on my video.
They're like, how could you have 11,000?
It's like, look at all the channels of audio.
There's days.
Apollo 17 was three days on the surface of the moon.
So right there is already, most of these missions were 10 days to two weeks long.
So you just imagine how much audio recording there is of that.
It's unbelievable.
And you can find, I mean, all that's up.
NASA has their whole.
Archive where you can just literally click on all the wave files and like download it all.
I mean, yeah, it's incredible.
It's crazy.
The photos, the still photos, are enormous.
Yes, especially that the one website that I it was a um, University of Arizona scanned all the original 70 millimeter film.
I mean, yeah, each of those is like a hundred or it's multiple gigs worth of imagery.
They're massive files and they are still to this day just stunning from that Hasselblad camera.
It's like art, but I really want so there's a new NASA administrator named Jared Isaacman, yeah, yeah.
I'll kind of say he's a friend of mine.
Definitely, I've met him a handful of times, flown in his jets three times, in his Alpha Jet and his MiG.
Really?
He's in a MiG?
Dude, he used to own the world's largest private air force, Draken International.
They basically cross trained against US military.
It was a cheaper way instead of the Army or Navy or Air Force training against their own red teams.
Private Air Force.
He basically was like, hey, I can do this for a tenth the cost.
I can just buy MiGs and do this for a tenth the cost.
That's actually how he kind of.
Became a billionaire was through creating Draken and counter training against US military forces.
And then he sold that and started Shift Four Payment Company.
So, if we ever see the Shift Four, little like, you know, you're paying with your watch or whatever, you know, little terminals.
Look, like next time you're at like a 7 Eleven or at a state, they're in a lot of stadiums for payment, a little point of sale thing.
Just look if it says Shift Four.
That's the current NASA administrator's previous company, too.
So, oh, wow.
So he became a billionaire, started buying flights from SpaceX.
He was the first private astronaut.
Buying flights.
He's done two orbital missions with SpaceX.
So he bought Inspiration Four, which was the first all private civilian mission.
That was an orbital mission.
So, not just like a little hop for four minutes.
They're up there for three full days and flying inside a SpaceX Dragon capsule.
They removed the docking port because they weren't docking with the International Space Station, put this beautiful window, a cupola window, like the size of the diameter of this table that they could look out.
And it's just stunning.
Some of the coolest images.
He paid for that and then developed that program himself.
Then, after that, he kind of caught the bug and he started a new program called Polaris.
And he said, The first one we want to do is we actually want to do the first commercial spacewalk.
And SpaceX had never done a spacewalk.
So, this required developing new spacesuits.
They would open up the Dragon capsule's hatch, depressurize the entire vehicle.
So, all four astronauts inside the Dragon capsule were sitting there in the vacuum of space.
Only two of them ever poked their heads up.
And they were just doing a basic shakedown of movement of the spacesuit, it was very primitive compared to what was coming with SpaceX developing their own EVA suits, they're called extravehicular activity suits.
But he developed that whole program.
It took him almost two years.
He flew.
So, he's flown twice on orbital missions.
He's the first person to ever do a commercial spacewalk.
So, he's the real deal.
He's awesome.
And there's a lot of things that I'm excited for in his administration.
But one of the things I want him to do is I would love for him to spearhead a better archive of all this old footage.
I want every launch.
I want you to be able to say, STS 107 space shuttle mission, show me everything NASA has in the highest quality.
Right.
I think, as the public.
What better PR thing to do when more young people than ever.
Think the moon thing was fake.
I know.
Like, please just give us all of this beautiful footage.
And, you know, there's still, it's so disorganized.
It's so disjointed.
A lot of the stuff on NASA is still like this old, like, rip from like 2004, like 180p, you know, like, not even 180, like 120p, like, horrible resolution.
You're just like, can we please get a modern, you know, modern bit rates, modern archive that we can all access?
Has he said what his like ultimate aim is while he's the director of NASA?
Like, what he wants to accomplish?
He really obviously believes in the commercialization.
Mars Radiation and Van Allen Belts00:15:21
Of spaceflight.
He's seen the success of SpaceX and he talks a lot about Blue Origin, SpaceX, Stokes Space, and Rocket Lab, and all these other companies that are building rockets.
He sees NASA's role as less.
Why should NASA be building rockets?
The Air Force doesn't build planes.
DOT doesn't build cars.
Why would NASA build the vehicle?
They should be doing the science, potentially not even training astronauts anymore.
That's become pretty doable now.
Axiom trains astronauts, SpaceX trains astronauts, Blue Origin has an astronaut program.
We don't need NASA to necessarily do those things anymore.
Those have become attainable for the commercial market.
He understands that.
And I think he's pushing really hard to move NASA away from the things that the commercial industry can do so they can start doing the riskier developmental things, such as nuclear propulsion, nuclear energy on the surface of the moon.
Instead of relying on solar panels, you could have a nuclear reactor on the moon for a moon base.
Doing bigger flagship science missions.
We have Curiosity and we have a lot of amazing Mars rovers in the past.
We have James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble Telescope.
Countless flagship missions.
We have Europa Clipper, which is heading out to Europa.
We have a quadcopter literally bigger than this table that's going to land on Titan with a moon of Jupiter, I think.
Jupiter, Saturn, I forget.
And fly around in its atmosphere because it's only like, it's about the size of the moon.
So it's about one sixth gravity and it has a thicker atmosphere than Earth.
So it's actually really easy to fly around.
Why?
Why does it have such an atmosphere?
It's mostly methane.
So it has, it's just the density of the molecules of the air.
And I don't know what exact mechanism, why it has such a thick atmosphere, why it.
Collected so much methane, but there's liquid lakes of methane.
So it's really cold, but the atmosphere is, you know, boiled off methane for the most part.
And you can just fly around and, like, it's almost low enough that if you had your own, like, wingsuit or something, you could just fly.
Yeah.
Wouldn't that be sick?
Good Lord.
So I wonder when Elon's going to finally get us to Mars.
I heard him say that they're one of the biggest hurdles is that they have to figure out how to be sustained life there.
Like, what happens if the ship stops coming?
Oh, yes.
Yes.
Right.
We have to have, we have to be able to.
Be self draining.
Extract resources, figure out maybe build factories there.
You have to have it all.
We have to figure out how to build our own shit there because we can't just rely on deliveries anymore.
So his initial vision with SpaceX was to make life multi planetary, right?
That's like the whole underlying theme of SpaceX.
And I hope that they're still abiding by that because they definitely have a lot of other projects with Starlink and potentially now AI computing in space and all these other big things.
But at the heart of it is still the idea that.
They could build a, if they make spaceflight cheap enough, use reusable rockets, that classic thing that I've been saying a lot, then something like Mars is not that hard as far as financially.
Like you just send starships to Mars.
If they're fully fueled in low Earth orbit, they have enough propellant to be able to do the entire journey to Mars.
Now, there's a lot of other complications about, you know, even on the way to Mars, you have, you know, extended radiation exposure and things like that.
You have cosmic background radiation.
You have zero G to contend with for six to nine months during your transit, which again, none of these things are deal breakers.
We've done all of this stuff in space.
It's just the culmination of all these things.
And the minimum trip time is about two years or 18 months, I think, but it's a terrible journey.
But basically, two years is like the typical to Mars and back because the planets have to realign to be able to get back from Mars to Earth.
Right.
And so, for even to send any humans to Mars, they have to be able to survive for two years on their own without any other sustenance.
They have to be able to land on Mars.
And most likely, the easiest way to do it is to land on Mars empty.
Literally extract propellant on the surface of Mars, fill your vehicle back up, and then get back to Earth.
That's like.
Is this just like a theoretical thing, or we know that that's possible?
It's, I mean, it's beyond hypothesis and it's theoretically possible.
That we could extract propellant on Mars?
How would we do that?
So, there's actually quite a bit of water on Mars.
Most of it's like a saline, it's in the dirt.
Like, it's not just freestanding water.
Some of it's not even ice water.
It's like literally mud.
But if you can separate it out, which is going to be somewhat energy intensive, but you can separate out the water, you can then boil off water into, you can make it using electrolysis, you can get liquid oxygen, or you can get oxygen, then you condense it down and freeze it into, or lower its boiling point into liquid oxygen.
But then you can take that hydrogen, mix it with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there.
You can then create methane actually out of using a process called the Sabatier process.
And you can actually get methane on Mars as well.
And they actually think it's easier to do methane almost than it is to do hydrogen on its own because it's just more energy dense.
Well, technically, not more energy dense, but the specific energy is lower than hydrogen.
But in the scheme of like getting to Mars and refueling, methane seems like the right choice.
That's bonkers, bro.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, it's within the realm of, and I think this is the way that Elon and a lot of SpaceX people work they work in the first principles theory of like, there's nothing physically impossible, right?
There's not one big thing like, oh, we just have to be able to turn off gravity for five minutes.
You know, there's nothing like that for being able to get humans to Mars.
It's just the culmination of all these challenges.
You have, again, you have radiation challenges that aren't.
Massive, but they're there.
You have to contend with them.
There's, you know, bone density issues with long term zero G exposure, landing on Mars and having to, you know, it's about 38% of Earth's gravity is Mars gravity.
So you go from six months of zero G.
So you'll go from six months of zero G to now having to stand up and walk and set up your mission on a planet.
You know, like we haven't done anything like that.
When the astronauts come back from six months of zero G, they're pretty.
Well, they can, they can, well, on the space station at least, they can.
Do things like working out, like lifting weights and stuff to maintain bone density and muscle mass.
But on the trip there, can they do that?
Yes.
They can.
Same type of thing.
I mean, there's just because you are going faster, once you're done accelerating, you're in the same zero G environment.
And zero G is different than zero gravity.
A lot of people think zero G means zero gravity.
It means zero G, like on a gravity, on a G indicator, like a fighter jet.
It means you're not accelerating anymore.
So you and all your frame of reference are also not accelerating.
There's nothing pulling anything down.
So you're all just floating.
If you're in low Earth orbit, orbiting the Earth, you're in zero G. If you're on your way to Mars, you're in zero G.
So once you land on Mars, now you're experiencing 38% of Earth's gravity.
So what's that going to be like to go from zero G for six months to trying to walk and set up a structure on Mars?
The human body, lots of times it takes a few days or at least several hours to potentially a day to acclimate back to Earth gravity for most astronauts that have been on the ISS for six months.
So.
What's that going to look like?
What does Elon want to do?
He said he wants to detonate nukes in the atmosphere of Mars to terraform it or something.
That's one option.
It's like literally potentially detonate nukes over the poles.
There is a lot of ice.
Over the poles, right.
There is a lot of ice and liquid or frozen water over the poles.
If you nuked it, you could evaporate and actually start to develop a proper atmosphere.
You could theoretically speed up terraforming Mars by, yeah, like nuking the poles, basically.
Now, there is a conspiracy theory for you.
It'll create a radiated atmosphere.
Well, it's already quite irradiated at this point, and there's very little of it.
It's only about 1% as thick as Earth.
And it doesn't, they don't, as Mars, the biggest problem with Mars is it doesn't have a strong magnetosphere.
So it receives a lot of solar radiation.
So on the surface of Mars, you're receiving less solar radiation because you're further away.
So you receive about one, I think it's about a quarter of the amount of solar radiation.
Mars is closer to the sun or farther from the sun?
Further from the sun.
Farther from the sun.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think it's colder.
Right.
Okay.
I think it's 1.6 AU.
So I think it's either that or it's two.
It goes Venus, Earth, Mars, right?
Correct.
Yep.
And Mercury even closer to the sun.
And Mercury's even closer.
Right, right, right.
So it has less atmosphere, but it also receives less solar radiation than Earth does.
But the surface of Earth, we have the magnetosphere.
Right.
We have the atmosphere that helps us not get totally irradiated by the sun, too.
Right, right.
And the magnetosphere combined with solar wind creates those Van Allen belts, right?
Correct.
Yeah.
Yep.
Which is one of Bart's biggest claims.
Yeah.
You can't get through the Van Allen belts.
Yeah.
He does claim that.
And there's lots of other astronauts that he clips saying that we have to solve these issues before we travel to the next stage.
Did you really?
Yeah, in my video, I literally just called that guy that said that.
Oh, yeah, it's in your video.
It's in my video.
Yeah, but he could have been trying to hedge.
He doesn't work for NASA anymore.
Oh, he doesn't?
No, he hasn't, which is also why it was easy to just talk to him.
Because if he was a.
This is him, Kelly Smith?
Kelly Smith.
So, play the video.
It's Kelly Smith, and I work on navigation and guidance for.
Sabrell.com for anyone who's here.
We are headed 3,600 miles above Earth, 15 times higher from the planet than the International Space Station.
As we get further away from Earth, we'll pass through the Van Allen belts, an area of dangerous radiation.
Deadly.
Radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion.
Naturally, we have to pass through this dangerous zone twice once up and once back.
And this is a pause it.
This is in the context of going to the moon, correct?
His specific video that he's showing is Orion.
Orion, but they're hyping up EFT 1.
So, notice he said we're going 15 times further than Earth.
He's talking about a test flight that happened in 2014.
This was the first time Orion ever flew.
It did not go to the moon.
They were just testing the first ever flight of Orion.
And it actually lingered in very high radiation portions of the Van Allen.
So, it went into Van Allen, did a U turn?
Basically, it's in an orbit that the orbit intersects.
Like when you go out to the moon, your orbit basically just extends.
Like your rays are very elliptical, it goes way up.
And so you're flying through the Van Allen radiation belts relatively quickly.
This orbit, basically, the slowest and the higher you are at the height of your orbit, the slower you're physically traveling.
Sure, that's in the belt.
So they were literally like loitering right in the meatiest part of the Van Allen belts.
There's no one on board.
And they were saying, like, and then also, this is like, this is the height of NASA's sadness.
The shuttle program had been ended for three years.
This is the first time they're doing anything that the public's like, please, you know, people think like NASA's canceled.
They're like, please, like, we, I hope NASA's doing something.
This is like the first time NASA was really doing something publicly.
We weren't even flying humans, we had to fly through Russia at this point to get to the International Space Station on Soyuz.
We were doing that up until 2020 when SpaceX returned humans to the International Space Station on SpaceX.
So from 2011 until 2020, we were having to fly on the Soyuz rocket.
No way.
Yeah.
Wow.
So this was the first time that NASA's really doing a big mission.
They're trying to hype people up, explain the challenges that Orion is going to be lingering on this particular mission because it flew on a Delta IV heavy.
I thought it was interesting that when Charlie was in here, I was like, what were the conversations like with Von Braun or anyone when it came to traveling through the Van Allen belts or like radiation, like?
He's like, I don't remember any conversations about radiation.
Because it honestly isn't actually that big of a consideration.
But, like, in that documentary, actually, I took a picture of it on my phone last night.
I was watching the Apollo 11 documentary last night.
Let me pull up this picture I took.
I'll send it to you, Steve, right here.
So, they were talking back to Capcom and they were going over their health.
I guess they were trying to, they had monitors on them, on their suits, whatever, to monitor their heart rate.
And they were like, It talked about all their heart rates during launch, like throughout the mission and all this stuff.
And at one point, they were transmitting their radiation levels back.
So, like, there it is.
I took this last night of my TV.
So it's saying Armstrong's radiation levels is 11.11 rad.
0.11 rad.
Yep.
Collins is 0.10 rad.
And then Aldrin's was 0.09 rad.
Yep.
Medications negative means they're on no drugs.
I guess.
So I guess that's not a deadly level of rape.
But it's interesting because they were obviously recording it, right?
They're paying attention to it.
They were paying, yeah.
And that's more of like a, I think in John's mind, and especially maybe, you know, 50 years later, that's probably one of the least consequential things he was thinking about.
You know, landing on the moon, you're flying at 3,000 miles an hour as you're approaching.
Like, you have so many other things to worry about and doing that.
That's more of like a medical director's job is to make sure that it's an invisible thing.
You know, it's kind of out of sight, out of mind, maybe.
Exactly.
And like when Bart's describing, you know, all these numbers, first off, when he's saying, you know, Val Allen's numbers, He's quoting the very initial findings of the Van Allen belts were from Van Allen, who's from Iowa, University of Iowa.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it was on Explorer One.
It was literally one of the very first orbital missions the United States had ever done.
And the saturation, they saturated the instrument.
They actually had like two, their instrument was just like reading, it was off the charts.
So they estimated here's about what we think.
And those levels after Explorer Two, Explorer Four, all these other subsequent missions, Luna and the Soviets' missions through the Van Allen belts to get to the moon.
We refined and we, and not only did we refine those numbers, we mapped out the Van Allen radiation belts, right?
So, the numbers that like Sabrell's always quoting is like literally the very first finding ever.
You know, it's like sticking a probe on a volcano and going, Oh, the volcano is 10 million degrees.
It's like, well, yeah, maybe in that one spot that one time.
You know, it's like, let's get the whole picture of how the volcano actually works, all of it from the under here and there.
And so, we've mapped that out by the 60s.
We had a really good understanding of what the belts look like because we almost thought with Explorer One, it seemed like it was just this.
Entire disk, like a whole, or not a disk, a whole like extra sphere around the Earth that was potentially high radiation.
We didn't even know what was beyond that.
Explorer One didn't go that high.
So it's like, uh oh, what if like beyond this, the radiation levels go way up beyond that even, or way up beyond, you know, we didn't know what it looked like.
And it turns out the troidal shapes are like donuts around the Earth.
And those peak levels are like when, you know, again, when people are quoting like the maximum level, you're talking about like in the absolute worst spot.
Where, if you were butt naked out there, you would receive a not healthy amount of radiation.
Baikonur Cosmodrome Emergency Launches00:16:38
Put on a spacesuit already, boom, you probably cut it in about a third.
Get inside of a metal, aluminum, and stainless steel capsule with a heat shield and a lot of polycarbonates and a lot of other mass between you and that, boom, you cut it down about a hundred or whatever the number is.
I don't even know.
It's probably realistically about a quarter or whatever.
But at the end of the day, it's all about how much time you're spending in radiation.
That's why nurses and x ray technicians.
They leave the room during an x ray.
It's not that the x ray itself, that amount that you as the patient are exposed to.
Like, okay, that's totally lethal.
But if you're doing that day in and day out every day for 40 years, that's potentially a lethal amount of x ray exposure, right?
Radiation exposure.
So it's, yeah, I love that meme where it's like, I don't know if you see it.
They haul ass out of the room.
Exactly.
This is totally safe.
Oh, yeah.
But it is just, if you had x rays done every day of your life, yeah, that's not great.
That is very not great.
Or flew on an airplane every day.
Even that pilots, a lot of people do do that.
I fly often and I probably have a higher exposure to radiation than the average human does, right?
But that's it's the laws of average at the end of the day.
And even if you spent the amount of time they spent on the way to the moon and on the way back, if they're butt naked, they receive about one year's worth of radiation a year, like of average radiation here on Earth.
But is it true that no other human beings or living organisms from Earth have traveled through the radiation belts except for the Apollo astronauts?
Yep, basically, until about 10 days from now.
Until about 10 days from now, wild, right?
Are they launching out of Cape Canaveral?
Yeah, wow, dude, you should pop over there.
It's probably going to be a night launch at this point, though.
Most of the windows, like the launch windows, are at night.
So it'll be really good.
Do you get like special access?
We'll be at the press site.
So we'll be like alongside CBS and like all these traditional, you know, like broadcasters.
And then you'll just see us in our little production trailer.
And yeah.
Whoa.
Yeah.
I might go do that.
Dude, it's fun.
I mean, this launch will be historic.
It's the first time in 54 years that humans have left low Earth orbit.
And then the claim to actually put step foot on the moon is going to be how many years from now?
Well, SpaceX thinks they can do it by 2028.
2028.
Yep.
I wouldn't be surprised if it.
I think the goal should just be to beat China, which is 2030.
I still think that's quite ambitious because the way they're doing it is so ambitious.
Again, there's two big, unproven technologies.
Blue Origin's working on a little bit less, it's still massively ambitious and like three times bigger than the Apollo lunar lander, like Blue Origin's lunar lander.
But that one's a little bit more like it only requires a couple refuelings to make it work.
And there's actually a version they're working on that likely doesn't need any refueling, just as like a fast track mission.
Like if we want to repeat an Apollo mission, they're built, they potentially, especially with Jared Isaacman saying, like, get your.
Let's get going.
You know, let's get this going.
Let's get Artemis 3 going.
They might be working on a smaller subscale model of, but it's still bigger.
This is Bezos's lunar lander.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Jeff Bezos.
That's the original.
That's not what it looks like anymore now.
If you look up a blue ghost Mark or blue, sorry, blue moon Mark 1.
There we go.
Like that tall one.
That thing.
Yeah.
That's what they're working on now, basically.
And that's three times more massive than what NASA landed in the 60s.
Is.
Blue Origin competing with SpaceX to do this?
Yes.
They both have contracts from NASA to be lunar landers.
So it's the same like how Boeing and SpaceX got the commercial contract to take humans to the ISS.
Blue Origin and SpaceX are the two contracted to land humans on the moon with their lunar landers.
So they gave each of them a certain amount of money and only one of them are going to get chosen.
No, they both are chosen and they both are lunar landers.
Oh.
But now it's kind of the race to see who can be the first one.
Got it.
But they both have like long term contract options.
Whoa.
Are they like interchangeable?
Like, do their parts connect or are they specific to them?
To like Blue Origin has their own like connectors.
Are we going to run out?
Are you trying to say, are we going to be another Apollo 13 square peg, round hole type of situation?
Let's make this all universal, guys.
No, there's no way that's going to happen.
I was going to say, I think this is probably even further away from the universal aspect.
Although there might be some, because they're NASA customers, they do have access, you know, they're NASA contractors, they have access to NASA's suite of information.
If they want to use a NASA technology, of course, you know, it's like, here we go.
That's the beauty of these commercial contracts and working with the private sector alongside NASA.
NASA can say, hey, lean on our expertise.
We've done this before.
Here's what we use for a CO2 scrubber.
Here's what we use for a toilet.
Here's our blueprints.
You know, work on that.
Famously, SpaceX, when they first were working on a docking adapter for docking to the International Space Station, NASA actually sent them one of their docking ports.
It was like, here you go.
You know, careful.
There's like a $30 million piece, or like literally, I think a $10 million piece of hardware.
And apparently, the story goes, they all were like, This is really heavy and this is really expensive.
What are we doing here?
And SpaceX took that blueprint, they whittled it down.
Literally, I think this is the one where they used, like, for the clamping mechanisms, they literally ended up using mountain bike springs and they built their own in house in like four months or something for like dirt cheap.
Yeah.
That's nuts.
So it's like, you know, NASA knows what they're doing and they're going to build an incredible product.
But they have no incentive to do it inexpensive.
And it's like, just make it perfect, you know, as opposed to like make it work and make it sustainable.
It's not really in the directive per se.
So, yeah.
So it's, we'll see though.
Maybe there are some commonalities between some of these systems.
Have you seen that report that they're using this specific fungus that they found in Chernobyl?
It's called like cladosporium.
It's like a black fungus that eats radiation.
And they're supposed to be using this in like the future NASA missions to.
As a radiation shield or to protect the astronauts.
Whoa.
So, this fungus that they discovered in Chernobyl where the meltdown was, something about this shit, they can engineer it in the spacecraft to protect them from like this exterior.
Can you find this, Steve?
Dude, that I haven't heard about that, but that would be, I mean, that's the type of thing that you'd almost think would balance out in nature.
If there's like deadly radiation, you never know.
There could be a life form out there that actually thrives on radiation, you know, and like that would be so cool.
So, this is all you could find.
There was a lot better.
There was a.
There you go, BBC.
Yeah, click the BBC one.
Click on that BBC article.
Mysterious black fungus from Chernobyl that may eat radiation.
Dude, that's that big Russian.
Yes.
Low frequency.
That low frequency thing.
Isn't that sick?
That thing's nuts.
Dude, I have been to a launch in Kazakhstan.
Really?
Yeah, so Russia, because that's where they still launch from, is a bike and a cosmodrome.
And it is the crew, you feel like you are stepping back in time.
It is the craziest place because Baikonur, too, specifically, is technically Russian.
When was this?
This was 20, right before, it was like December 2022, right before they invaded Ukraine.
So, like, I think, had it been even a month or two later, two months later, I think it would have been like, you guys are absolutely not coming here.
Right.
But I was, I don't know if you knew this, but I was, I had been chosen by a Japanese billionaire that had purchased a ride around the moon on Starship with SpaceX.
And he ended up choosing 10 people to go with him.
And then he canceled.
His ride because he flew.
He also, it's a long story.
That was called Dear Moon.
And he also had already purchased a ride from Russia way back in like 2012 or something, 2013.
He'd purchased a ride with Russia to fly to the International Space Station.
And it took him until 2022 to do that.
So he flew all of us out there to watch his launch.
His name's Yusaku Maezawa.
So we go out to the Baikonur Cosmodrome.
And this was right after I had produced like an hour and a half long video that was a documentary on all the old Soviet rocket engines.
Because I just, it's a.
Like, there's hundreds of them, and they're a family tree.
They're all like intermingled, and I could never make any sense of them.
Like, why did this rocket?
It didn't make any sense.
So, I made this long family tree, long video.
And so, I'm nerding out because now I'm there at the heart of the Soviet space program, Baikonur Cosmodrome.
And because it's technically a Russian territory still, you don't even need your passport when you go from Moscow to there.
You literally are still in Russia.
And so, because it's also in Kazakhstan, but it's Russian, they don't really care.
And it still feels like it literally is in the Cold War.
Like, it's like, The buildings are still just untouched.
It looks like just Soviet block everything, and you feel like you literally step back in time.
It is the craziest thing.
And so we go out there, we're 1.5 miles away, two and a half kilometers.
That's the closest I've ever been to anything with a rocket engine that's going to leave the ground.
Like, you know, I've only been closer when it's a rocket engine test.
And I'm standing there, and I'd heard stories about people getting even closer.
Like, there's stories of people standing like 200, 300 feet away from this rocket when it launches because they're Russian.
They're like, ah, whatever.
Just when it launches, just duck behind this thing.
Light your cigarette from the fucking exhaust.
Literally.
And so I'm like sitting there, and we're setting up, and all of a sudden, this guy comes up to us in a van and goes, Do you guys want to get closer?
And I'm like, I'm already kind of like, oh, this is uncomfortably close already.
But I'm like, yeah, let's do it.
So we, a few of us, pack into this little van, start driving straight to the rocket.
And I'm sitting there going, oh my God.
This thing's like 40 minutes away from taking off.
You know, you can see condensation pouring off of it because it's got liquid oxygen in it.
You know, it's got its RP1 in it.
And we're just driving right up.
We turn right at like the gate where the rocket would normally be, like going right around it.
At some point, I measured it on Google Maps.
I think you're only.
Less than a quarter mile away is how close the road is to it while it's fully fueled, which is like in the US, if you drove close to a rocket that's 40 minutes away from launching and it's fully fueled like that, you would have armed men like, do not get any closer.
This is too dangerous.
Like, you are in the red zone, but we're just driving right past it.
We go a little bit beyond the rocket and then up on this hill, and we're only a quarter mile away from the rocket.
And I'm going, we are definitely too close.
Like, I am freaking out.
And I don't want to say anything because we're in a van full of people.
I have footage of this.
And Is this on your channel?
It isn't.
I haven't ever made a video about it, but I probably should because it's a really entertaining story.
And all of a sudden, right when we park, the guy that told us to get in the van, his phone rings and he's speaking in Russian for a while.
And then all of a sudden, he hangs up and he goes, They caught us.
And I'm like, What do you mean they caught us?
Like, A, A, who are you and why did we get in your van?
B, what do you mean they caught us?
Are we going to like Russian jail now?
Because I can't do that.
I can't go to Russian prison, please.
And so we're all just kind of freaking out.
We're like, what do you mean?
And we just drive back and we're driving right past the rocket again.
And now we're like T minus 12 minutes or something.
And it's like right there.
And I'm like, and I'm still nervous.
We're going to, you know, as soon as we get out of the vehicle, we're going to get handcuffed or something.
We pull right back to where he picked us up at, right at the little like press site.
We get out of the van and I'm looking around.
No one, no one said anything.
No one cared.
And we said, get the hell out of there.
Just, hey, yeah, get it.
What are you guys doing?
Get out of there.
That's not good.
They caught us.
And so, literally, I had enough time to throw my camera down on the ground.
We all stood and watched this launch, and it was beautiful.
It was really, really cool.
But it's just, they do things different over there.
I'll say that.
Whoa.
Yeah.
What was that like getting into Russia?
I mean, at the time.
You flew into Russia and then went to Kazakhstan?
Yep.
We flew into Moscow.
And I mean, Moscow is really cool.
It's a beautiful city.
I would love to be able to spend time there.
It's nice.
I mean, nothing.
I think you could still go there.
Can you?
I don't know where I could be wrong.
I don't know what the current, you know, ongoing situation is, but I'd love to go.
Like, St. Petersburg also looks amazing, yeah.
Um, but yeah, I mean, it was generally really nice.
The people that we interacted with were super nice.
I mean, it was cool, it was fun for me again.
Like, I just finished this big project and you know, I was excited, so I went to another aerospace museum right downtown that was amazing and again had hardware that I'm like, oh, you know, freaking out.
And we went to another museum at Baikonur, and it was so cool.
And and you know, I do feel like.
Even today, you know, on the ISS right there, the International Space Station, you still have Russians and US, you know, NASA astronauts living together, living and working together.
Right, right.
There's on average about seven people now that are on station at any time.
Right now, we actually have a little bit of a turnover because we just actually had a first astronaut get sick enough to have to come home early, just literally like two weeks ago, a week and a half ago.
I don't know if you heard about that.
It's the first time ever in NASA history that a mission was cut short because an astronaut had a medical issue on the space station.
On the space station.
Now, it wasn't, uh, It wasn't an emergency.
They made that very clear because an emergency, they can deorbit in like hours.
They can get back down.
They're orbiting the Earth.
You're only like, you know, 350 miles, you're 500 kilometers above the Earth.
You're not that far up.
You know, people think like, oh, it's up there, but it's just that it's orbiting.
You have to undock and then do all the other suit up.
You have to undock, you have to deorbit, burn, and re enter.
But you can get on the ground in a few hours, right?
Oh, really?
Yeah, in a true emergency.
Like if there's something collided into it or a massive leak or a fire or something, they can get down on the ground in hours.
So that's not the issue.
So obviously, they ended up taking like three or four days is how long.
So it wasn't that big of an emergency.
It was more of like, we have a medical issue.
Out of an abundance of caution, we're going to bring the crew home, four people home.
So, four out of the seven astronauts came home.
Three NASA astronauts and one Russian astronaut.
How do you get sick in outer space?
I mean, it could be anything like a gallstone bladder or something, or appendicitis or something that's not a virus.
Right, probably.
And we don't know because of HEPA.
This is someone's personal medical situation that you don't need to be necessarily that.
We don't have the rights or need to know that.
Yeah, unless it's like an alien virus.
Right, unless it's an alien virus.
What's that new show, the Plurip?
Pluribus, whatever, dude.
Yeah, have you seen that?
Yes, that was incredible.
I loved it.
But they, uh, yeah, so they, for the first time ever, they brought a crew back.
But so, for right now, during this little period of time until February, early February, they're launching crew 12, I think, 12 or 13.
I'm already losing track.
Um, they actually only have three members on the ISS, but two Russian cosmonauts and one NASA astronaut are still uh running the space station at this point.
But isn't that cool?
Like, how long is that space station going to be up there?
Aren't they going to decommission it?
They're hoping to decommission it.
I think the latest, I forget because it keeps getting pushed back.
But I mean, it was supposed to have been deorbited by now, especially from the original plans, like forever ago, actually.
But I think 2030 is the current deorbiter, 2028, 2030.
And we're working on commercial space stations.
So there are a few companies working on commercial space stations that they own and operate.
And NASA could be one of many customers to come up and use it for science and other things.
Wow.
Because again, the commercial economy is finally happening.
It's finally.
Physically and financially feasible to be able to bring your own space station up and build out your own space station cheaper than it is for NASA to continue to run the International Space Station.
And Jeff Bezos is just going to have an Amazon factory floating up there so you can get your Amazon packages delivered in an instant straight from a rocket ship from space.
Kinetic impact, Amazon delivery.
I'm ready.
Yeah.
Okay.
So that, okay, that Russian rocket.
What?
So the Chinese billionaire decided not to do it.
Japanese.
Yeah.
Yusaku Maezawa.
Yeah.
He apparently in his contract had.
If so, he bought it, and actually, this is kind of poetic.
The whole reason that I ended up making my first like stand in front of a camera and explain rocket science or a rocket thing video was February 27th, 2017.
So, we're coming up on nine years, and it was a press release that SpaceX had announced that they're flying a human around the moon.
Someone had purchased a ride, this is before they had ever flown a human to space.
Steve Aoki Space Ride Purchase00:05:24
They had someone come to them to buy a ride around the moon, and the original plan was to use their Falcon Heavy, which is that one that's like three rockets kind of strapped together.
I don't know if you've seen that at LAN.
It's two boosters and it's really cool.
Pull up a picture.
Yeah, Falcon Heavy.
That flies.
I think there's going to be four Falcon Heavy flights this year.
I think all of them are from Florida.
So if you have the chance to see one, they're super sick.
Okay.
That's the.
Yes, yes, yes.
Not the one with all those weird.
The one with the middle, right there.
Yeah, exactly.
Yep.
That's the Falcon Heavy.
That one's not Falcon Heavy.
That looks like a Russian vehicle.
Oh, okay.
Exactly the same.
There you go.
Falcon Heavy.
Look at the one of it.
Go back, zoom out.
The one of it shooting off the Asian Age.
Down, down, right, left.
There you go.
Yep.
So, so Yusaku Maezawa, we've later found out because at first it was private.
They didn't know who had purchased this ride around the moon.
And originally, well, later we found out his name was Yusaku Maezawa.
And it was in 2018, I think, he held a press conference, so about a year and a half later.
And originally, the secret was that he was going to fly his then girlfriend at the time around the moon and wanted to propose to her around the moon.
Oh my God.
Mm hmm.
He then basically scrapped that after, well, apparently, I think when she found out about that.
On the dark side of the moon, he wanted to propose to her?
Something like that, yeah.
On the mission.
And basically, the crew Dragonfly.
A lot too much money, dude.
The Crew Dragon capsule, we don't know how much.
It was never undisclosed how much, but it was likely $200 to $300 million, maybe even more, maybe more like $400 million.
So that's how much he was willing to do for this.
They were only capable with the Crew Dragon capsule.
They were saying they could fly two people.
So it was going to be him and his girlfriend.
She found out and freaked out, and they broke up, is my understanding.
Oh, the irony.
Yep.
Then apparently.
It's a good thing he didn't do it because she would have divorced his ass like a year into that marriage.
Yes.
Then apparently, the lore goes that he was trying to do like a dating show.
When so, SpaceX eventually said, Hey, we're actually giving up on flying Dragon around the moon.
We're going to just go all in on Starship, right?
This is 2018.
They're starting to be like, Screw Falcon Heavy, that's so last year.
Like, we'll give you a whole Starship launch because this thing is way bigger.
You can invite 10 people with you, whatever you want to do.
It's massive.
We'll give that to you at the same cost, just if you wait it out, right?
That's kind of the agreement.
So, originally, he then said, Hey, I know I'll do a dating show where I invite a bunch of women with me on this moon mission.
And by the end of it, I'll have a fiancee or a girlfriend or something.
He hadn't quite given up on this idea of proposing, right?
This is, I can't believe this is a real thing.
I can.
Someone, a close friend of his, said, Hey, that's really dumb.
Like, maybe you shouldn't do that.
And so he gave up on that and started this idea called Dear Moon, which was he was going to invite eight to 12, I think the original press conference was eight, which I was at that press conference.
He said he's going to invite eight artists, you know, painters, documentarians, you know, dancers, all these different people from different walks of life from all around the world to go around the moon with him.
That was his original vision.
I thought that was, I mean, it was beautiful.
It was like this wonderful sentiment of like.
Can we find a picture of this guy?
What's his name?
Yusaku Maezawa.
Boom.
Damn, Steve.
That was the fastest shit I've ever seen.
Yeah, how old is this guy?
44.
Fashion mogul.
That was in 2020, 44.
Oh, so 2020.
He's about 50 years old now.
Okay, got it.
So he.
What we didn't know.
So, how did I want to know how he made his money?
I need to know this from fashion, basically.
Yeah, he had a rock, he was basically the Richard Branson of Japan because he had a record distribution like company or something first, and that's how he made his first amount of money.
And then he started a project, a fashion company called Zozo, I think, and became a billionaire, one of Japan's billionaires.
And so, he did this project, and through a two year period, then that he chose a crew.
Basically, so there's like this whole selection process.
A million people put applications in, and then it was myself and nine others and two backup that were chosen for Dear Moon.
And so, you were gonna go, I was gonna go, yeah, you're nuts.
I know, I'm nuts.
And what we didn't know, the crazy thing is like we found out at the end of 22, at the end of 22, before we went to Russia, that we had been selected, right?
So they had whittled it down, whittled it down.
We're talking, I went to UCLA and had medical checkouts.
Oh my god, dude, yeah, so I was gonna go with Steve Aoki around the moon.
Do you know Steve Aoki?
Yeah, of course I know Steve Aoki.
Yeah.
Olympic gold medalist, Caitlin Farrington.
Like, I mean, it was crazy.
And I love these people dearly, and I actually got to know them very, very well.
And what we didn't know in Top.
And this was all going to be on a TV show?
No, this was just like his thing.
He just wanted us all to create, and he would own whatever amount we all negotiated.
He'd own rights to the video, or footage, or dances, or whatever creative things people came up with.
That's a banana.
Oh, yeah.
And Top is like a huge, I mean, that's a mega K pop star.
That's like, is he?
Huge.
Like, he has to buy his own restaurants out so he can go eat because otherwise he'll get mobbed in Korea.
Starship Massive Announcement Stunt00:06:48
Yeah, he's like, and he's awesome, actually.
He's a super cool guy.
But they, so yeah, so this was our crew.
And then what we didn't know in 22 when he basically said, hey, this is you, you were selected.
This guy, Brandon Hall, he sounds familiar.
He's a documentarian.
He hasn't done anything that's like probably massively popular publicly, but he's made some unbelievable, I'd say he's like the underdog filmmaker.
He's been, I mean, his work is incredible.
He has this documentary about, that's coming out about, Uh, the national parks, and like literally, it's one of the sweetest.
I cried watching it, it's just so beautiful.
You know, when someone says, Oh, I made a documentary about the national parks, yeah, you think, Oh, cool, we gotta hit this guy up.
And oh, he is a delight, he is just a wonderful human and just a great storyteller.
And this is like one of those because it's oh, I don't even, yeah, maybe I'll watch this, yeah, I don't know when it's Florida Film Festival.
Look at that, is he living in Florida?
Uh, his girlfriend's family's from here, so or his fiance, actually, they're about to get married.
Uh, the trailer's not even out yet, yeah.
He's been shopping around for a while.
So he's working on distribution and stuff.
Fantastic.
But anyway, so in 22, we all find out at the end of 22 that we're on this crew, right?
Yeah.
What we didn't know is that if this mission, Starship, hadn't flown the mission by the end of 23, that he could back out.
That his contract was like, if you haven't flown by 2023, you can back out of this.
If Starship.
Starship.
So that's the massive rocket.
That like first flew for the first time in April 2023.
So he's sitting here going, Okay, yeah, let's announce this to the world.
He made this big announcement and you know, tells us all that we're going to the moon.
And we assume like we're in it for the long haul.
I'm telling everyone it's going to be a long time.
Like I was telling people at that time, I was telling people, I'm thinking 27, you know, 2027, 2028, maybe they'll have this capability, but we're a long ways off.
And I was, I'm always telling people it's milestone based, ignore dates, look for the first one you want to see is the first launch of Starship.
They're doing an iterative program.
So, the next one we're going to look for is we want to see the next orbit.
Then we need to see orbital refueling because it's Starship.
It's massive.
It's going to have to be refueled.
Then we have to see all these things add up.
And then maybe we'll be getting close to us being able to fly around the moon.
Not landing on the moon, flying around the moon.
And so, if he knew that he could back out at the end of 2023, that's why a lot of us have like the biggest qualms is like none of us knew that option.
I would have never signed up or let it be publicly known that I had been part of this if I knew he could back out one year after announcing us.
So that's what happened.
He pulled his contract.
He'd already flown to space in 22.
I think he got his taste of it.
He spent eight days on the ISS.
He found out the Earth was flat and canceled it.
Found out the Earth is flat and then he canceled it.
But I think for the reality is that he had already waited like nine or 11 years or whatever for Soyuz.
And I think he just didn't want to get in that same situation where a company said, Yeah, we'll get you up in a couple of years.
And then you're just waiting, waiting, waiting.
I think that's the heart of it.
Some of it might have also been financial.
We don't really know.
We just woke up to an email one day that's like, Yup.
Canceled it.
It was like two paragraphs.
Oh, it's a bummer.
And we're just all like, what?
And some people had like, they had uprooted their lives for this.
Like, you know, one of the women, Rhiannon, had already been working directly with Polaroid to build a specific camera for her for this mission.
And, like, literally, she had found out, and then a week later had to go speak at Polaroid, but it wasn't public yet.
We were under NDA because he hadn't made his press announcement.
So she had to sit there and, like, lie to a room full of people about her upcoming mission while she's internally, like, heartbroken that she just had this once in a lifetime opportunity completely stripped from her.
You know, can you imagine?
I mean, I'm kind of bitter about it because I've seen the effect that it had on a lot of the people.
And, you know, it's had a little bit of a personal reputation stain on myself.
Like, people are still going, Oh, you think you're going to the moon?
It's like, I had a billionaire purchase a flight.
Like, I mean, this will be the reality.
This will be happening in the next five, 10 years.
This will be an option that billionaires will be flying around the moon.
So it's not out of the realm of possibility.
I just happen to be at the top of the sucker list for someone that's pulling the rug out one year after the announcement, you know.
So, that rocket that launched from Kazakhstan, what was on that rocket?
That was a Soyuz launch.
So, it's a Soyuz rocket with a Soyuz capsule.
And it's literally been flying in that same iteration since like the 1960s.
Really?
Yeah.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I wonder how many rockets they send up compared to us.
I think last year it was something like 18 or something.
And we sent, SpaceX alone sent 163 or 160.
Yeah.
So, I mean, we're just lapping.
And what about China?
China's the only one that's close to even competing with SpaceX.
And I think they're.
Like 100 and something as well, 140 or something.
And it's mainly satellites, right?
Yep.
China has a crew space program, so they do have their own space station.
They have their own spaceflight vehicle that's derived from the Russians.
They literally bought plans from Russia.
Really?
Yep.
But they're working on their own stuff that's a lot bigger, better, newer, faster, stronger, which is why they're able to have the capability to land on the moon.
And they're also going for a, I believe their plan is for a dual rocket launch because you can just get a lot bigger stuff on the moon.
You can make a, you know, Saturn V was like the most stripped down you could possibly land on the moon.
The moon.
It was like the most bare bones, you know.
The thing they landed on the moon was so small, they had to like camp in it, you know.
You said the command module was the size of this table.
That's about right.
Yeah.
3.9 meters wide.
So less than 12 feet wide.
You know, that's like, that's small.
It's, it's, it was not luxurious.
It was a dangerous, high risk, bare minimum way of getting to the moon.
Right.
You know, and so the next.
It's a stunt.
Basically, it was a stunt.
It was a stunt.
Yeah.
And we landed six times and everyone was over it.
So when we're going back now, we're over it.
Back to I Love Lucy.
Yeah, exactly.
Literally, like Apollo 10, even, or Apollo 12, literally, they were canceling the broadcasts of Apollo 12 to just go back to regularly scheduled programming.
Like one mission later, we're all like, collectively, been there, done that.
Like that's, if you think our TikTok attention spans now are bad, they're just, we're still as donkey brained back in the 60s, going, give me something new, you know?
Yeah.
So China is going back with a bigger, you know, bigger lunar lander.
Bigger crew capsule.
The United States is not going back with a little lander.
We're going with a skyscraper.
Yeah.
We're going to just have this insane presence on the moon that's going to be extremely dominant.
Fungal Walls for Lunar Life Support00:04:38
Steve, go back to that article about the fungus.
I love this.
I did not know, and I love where this is going.
This is the sci fi stuff, you know, sci fi esque stuff that gets me.
Yeah.
This is some stuff from like a thriller movie.
I saw a reel that these guys did about it, and they like, I mean, they like the way they presented it sounded like fake.
And then I look, I'm like, there's no way this is real.
And then I looked it up and I found all these articles.
I was like, no fucking way they're doing that.
That's sick.
That's the kind of stuff that, like, I love that.
I love when we kind of find, like, I don't know.
Have you ever watched, like, The Martian?
Uh, seen that movie, Andy Weir's The Martian?
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Um, he also has another book called Artemis, ironically.
Um, and then a movie coming out from this book, Project Hail Mary.
And it deals, he always deals in, like, these things that we've, you know, we haven't ever discovered them per se, but like, there's some little, like, technology or some little thing that could exist in the realm of possibilities.
This is, like, one of those things that reminds me of his writing where it's like, how cool would that be if we had this fungus that ate radiation, you know, like, I love his writing because it's just, it's like, it's not like science fiction in the sense of it could be, you know, it could all exist.
Right.
There's no like hand waving, oh, we can go faster than the speed of light.
Here's our warp drive, you know.
Oh, this is from 2020.
When's that BBC article from, Steve?
What's the date on the BBC article?
2025.
Interesting.
So, okay, so let's read this one.
Scroll down.
Punch in a little bit.
Mold found at the site of this Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
Appears to be feeding off the radiation.
Could we use it to shield space travelers from cosmic rays?
In May 1997, Nelly Zardanova entered one of the most radioactive places on Earth, the abandoned ruins of Chernobyl's exploded nuclear power plant, and saw that she wasn't alone.
Across the ceiling walls and inside metal conduits that protected electrical cables, black mold had taken up residence in a place that was once thought to be detrimental to life.
In the fields and forests outside, wolves and wild boars had rebounded in the absence of humans.
But even today, there are hot spots where staggering levels of radiation can be found due to material thrown out from the reactor when it exploded.
Like plants reaching for sunlight, Zardanova's research indicated that fungal hyphae of the black mold seemed attracted to ionizing radiation.
That's freaking nuts.
So, where does it talk about NASA using this?
Scroll down.
Okay, here we go.
It would add to the knowledge of a potentially new foundation of life on Earth, one that thrives on radiation rather than sunlight.
And it would lead to scientists at NASA to consider surrounding their astronauts in walls of fungi for a durable form of life support.
That's sick.
But now imagine this hey, guys, we have the cure to radiation.
We're just going to throw a bunch of black mold in your spacecraft.
Right?
Well, what does this say?
Their cell walls were packed with melanin?
Huh.
Whoa.
That's cool.
Just as darker skin protects ourselves from ultraviolet radiation, Sardona suspected that the melanin of these fungi were acting as a shield against ionizing radiation.
That's really cool.
You know, that's another thing about the astronauts in the space station because they, you know, human beings were evolved to thrive off.
Melanin from the sun, right?
The sunlight.
And when you're in there, you are completely shielded from sunlight.
So there's like all these crazy things that happen to your mitochondria, negative things that happen to the human mitochondria when you're not exposed to that stuff.
And one of the things that happens is apparently a lot of these guys come back with like severe low testosterone because all of the like the biomechanics of the human body, your certain hormones, like you don't have vitamin D. Which leads to the production of testosterone and all these other things can inhibit your mitochondrial health, which is crazy.
Yeah.
So if they can come up with things like that, like UV, they now sell like UV light panels that you can get that like literally emit UV.
You can get a tan.
Space Force Satellite Tracking Assets00:17:22
Right.
So I wonder if there's a way that they can probably include those to keep those astronauts healthy out there.
Yeah.
And frankly, a window, I think, can do a good amount of that too.
The big thing that you're constantly balancing with any spacecraft is if you're bringing, if you have a window, you're creating, you're bringing in a lot of heat as well.
So, you know, you have that direct radiative heat coming in.
Getting trapped behind the glass, you know, it's warming up the air inside the spacecraft.
And you'll notice, and even Charlie Duke mentioned this on your podcast, where he was talking about the barbecue rule.
That's a thing they would do where the vehicle, especially on the way out to the moon, they'd keep it in this persistent roll so that not one side of the spacecraft was constantly getting bombarded with heat and the other side.
Balance the thermal load of the vehicle.
Because otherwise, even like the metals can start to expand on one side and shrink on the other because, you know, it's on the opposite side where it's shielded from the sun.
Radiating heat out away.
So it's taking all the heat.
It all has to be an equilibrium balance.
You have heat coming in and you have an ability to take heat away just through radiation.
So, and not like deadly radiation like we think, just literally heat radiates.
There's three forms of heat transfer radiative, conductive, and convection.
And conductive is when you grab something, radiation is when you feel heat coming off of a heat lamp, even though you're below it.
And convection is when you feel in the air.
So, in space, radiation heat heats up a spacecraft.
And they, so for Apollo, the simplest thing they did was just barbecue roll it so it stays thermally consistent throughout the vehicle.
But yeah, I mean, there's so many things.
You could have a big giant window as a tanning bed or something, a way to receive sunlight.
But then you have a lot of thermal considerations.
Okay, now you have to, now the inside of the spacecraft is all the air inside, it's warmed up.
Now we have to have a big radiator out the back that radiates that heat away so we don't boil our astronauts alive and stuff like that.
Right.
It's all, spaceflight is like the ultimate trade.
Everything is a trade for something else.
You can, right.
You can make a giant skyscraper land on the moon, but your trade is you better have the ability to refuel in low Earth orbit 15 times to be able to make that happen.
Or the other option is if you don't want to do that, you'll have to build a rocket big enough to launch that thing off the Earth in one shot.
And now you're talking about if the Saturn V was 111 meters tall or Starship's 120 meters tall, now you're talking about a rocket that's 3,000 meters tall or something and the size of a city block in order to launch that in one launch.
That's just not feasible.
It's a lot more sensible.
The trade in that situation is.
Break this thing up into multiple missions, refuel it.
I mean, that's what I love about aerospace.
When you learn any minutiae, when you ask that question of why, it's always fun to see the opposite side of that trade and go to the other extremes of that trade and then learn like, this is an art.
You know, these are people's jobs, literally just like studying.
You know, a lot of people were afraid of the full flow stage combustion cycle that SpaceX developed because it's so complicated.
Its timing has to be like perfect because there's two fuel pumps.
You have one fuel pump that runs off of a turbine that runs.
On the methane, and it's methyl ox rich.
You have another pump that runs all the oxygen, and the turbine is oxygen rich.
And these two things have to spin up perfectly within sync, within like 100 RPM out of 30,000 or 40,000 RPM in milliseconds accuracy.
And if they feed each other even off by a tiny bit, you blow up your engine.
And so, like, that's the trade is like, sure, you can make this beautifully efficient, high powered, you know, extremely complex rocket engine that actually.
On paper, it is great.
Like it's the most efficient.
You're not wasting any propellant.
You can get the highest pressure inside the combustion chamber.
You can have the lowest temperatures across the turbines.
You have all these things.
But if you get it wrong, you're screwed.
And the developmental process of that has been thought to be almost just not worth it.
Like, you know, the Soviets developed it in the 1960s and 70s with the RD 270.
The United States developed a power head that was just the, not the combustion chamber, but just the power pack.
Said, eh, not worth it.
And then Elon was like, hey, we have to have this because it's the best, basically.
And everyone's like, no, no, no.
We're doing good enough with our gas generator on our Merlin.
We don't need the full flustered combustion cycle.
And he's like, no, no, no, but it's the best.
You know, and it physically is.
The trade is just like, you're going to blow up a lot of hardware to make this thing work.
Right.
And they did.
They did.
They did.
Yeah.
And now they've got this thing.
They're just bankrupt, right?
Oh, yeah.
I mean, they're constantly, because they're constantly reinvesting, they're, I mean, almost always at the verge of bankruptcy.
That's how Elon's always like, next, next, double down.
So that's Raptor.
When I first saw it, and the first thing that I ever saw fly was Raptor 1 on Starhopper, it was called.
It's literally like a water tank.
They stuck this thing up underneath just to learn how to kind of start operating.
The engine.
And so that's Raptor 1.
That was the first full flow stage combustion cycle to ever physically fly at all.
Then they kind of started cleaning it up, and Raptor 2 is what flew on the first Starships and Super Heavy.
The Super Heavy booster has 33 of these engines.
Of the twos?
Of the twos so far.
And now they're going to Raptor 3.
And notice how each one has less and less pipes.
That's not like a render, that's what it actually looks like on the right.
So the first one on the left, they have sensors like temperature and pressure sensors and All these sensors all over the engine so they can learn, like, as they're firing it, like, oh, we this transient here is a little bit off, or we have to open this valve a little sooner, whatever.
Raptor 2, they cleaned it all up, and that already by in aerospace standards was like, holy crap, look at how much they evolved that thing.
Look how simple it looks.
Yet, that's the most advanced rocket engine ever built.
Compare that to an RS 25, the space shuttle engine, which is on SLS.
Like, that looks like a clean, clean, clean engine.
Oh, yeah.
And then they're like, hold my beer, we're not even close to done.
Look at Raptor 3, they put all that stuff internally, it's all internally cool.
All these valves and stuff are in like a That's the engine right there.
And that will fly for the first time here in hopefully a couple months.
Oh, that one hasn't flown.
Has not flown yet.
How many Raptor 3s are on?
It'll be 33 again on the booster.
33.
Yeah.
Always that 33.
I love it.
Well, you know what's crazy is 42 is the number of whatever.
It's like the answer to everything or whatever on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe.
And Elon loves the number 42.
It's kind of been prevalent.
If they assume another version of Starship, right now, the upper stage has six engines, it has three vacuum engines and three sea level engines.
They'll be moving to six.
Vacuum engines and three sea level engines.
So, it the whole vehicle with 33 on the booster and nine up top will have 42 engines.
Therefore, the answer to life and everything is a sacred number.
Sacred number, baby.
Hold that thought.
I gotta pee real quick.
I have to pee too.
We'll be right back.
Have you seen footage of Starship launching andor landing?
I think so.
I've seen the thing, the video of it like catching it.
Yeah, yeah.
Go if uh, if you get instead of zibral.com, uh, if you sorry, if you go to uh, if you go to everydayastronaut, actually, we have really good slow mo footage.
Oh, really?
Yeah, yeah.
Do Starship.
How many people do you bring out in your camera crew?
About anywhere between six and 10.
Actually, go to videos and go to the.
Just scroll down a little bit.
You'll see.
Probably Flight 7 would be a pretty good one.
The Starship Flight 7 on the.
There we go.
Yeah, that one.
So, yeah, it's.
So, what frame rate do you shoot this at in slow mo?
So, this one would be 120 frames a second.
We have one camera that shoots 1,000 frames.
Frames a second, but most of our stuff is going to be 4K 120.
Right.
But we've been employing a whole bunch of fun cameras.
The catch is just the, yeah, like do this, do that landing track pad.
Go left a little bit, actually.
One more, one more, right there, landing track.
Go, like, watch the V. Oh, that's nuts, bro.
And this is where?
This is in Titusville?
This is, no, this is out in Brownsville.
So this is Texas.
Oh, wow.
Go back even further.
You can watch that come in and stuff.
Yeah, it has to come in at such a crazy angle.
The bottom of it pivots.
The bottom of the.
So that's called gimbling.
Yep.
And that's how, you know, you're basically like steering a broomstick.
You know, like if you're holding a broomstick with your hand and you're like trying to move it, that's what they're doing basically.
They're.
This is all manual?
This is all completely autonomous.
Completely autonomous.
And this thing, by the way, this vehicle is.
This has 33 engines on the bottom.
If you scroll to the.
Like later on, we have closer shots of this part.
It has 33 engines on the bottom.
It's.
Uh, these engines then steer it's 30 feet wide, so it's nine meters wide.
30 feet, so that's the booster wouldn't even fit width wise in this room.
It's 70 meters tall, so 220 feet tall, or whatever.
Good lord, and it's absolutely massive.
And that's the same launch tower that picks it up and puts it onto the launch mount.
They're using those same arms to catch this vehicle, so the vehicle doesn't have to have landing legs because the Falcon 9 has landing legs, but that's like you know, a non insignificant that's like you know, probably adds five percent of your land your mass of the vehicle just adding landing legs.
So, the idea was like, what if we just didn't have to have landing legs?
What if we put, in a sense, almost put the landing legs on the ground and had the rocket land on it?
And that's what they decided to do.
Oh, this shot's sick.
Let it run here.
This is the best one.
This one's insane.
Right here?
Yes.
This is our shot, too.
Like, we are tracking this.
Oh, this is real speed.
Yes, this is in real time.
Is there any audio?
Yeah, there's audio.
So, yeah, you can see the engines gimballing there to help steer it.
This was the second time they caught one.
So, they've caught three so far to date.
Of this rocket.
Of this particular rocket vehicle.
They've only reused one so far.
But these have all been just test flights.
These are all, you know, they're trying, they're pushing the boundaries on these.
So, they're not always catching them.
They're not always.
They have the reentry in the upper stage.
Starship is the top part.
The whole rocket's like Starship.
Yeah.
But it's like Starship on Super Heavy, kind of.
Yep.
And so, Starship, the upper stage.
They're still working on like how to reenter because that's actually a lot of reenter from orbit because this is just suborbital, it never exceeds, never gets into orbital velocities.
Right, maximum velocity is something like 3,000, uh, you know, kilometers an hour, 4,000 kilometers an hour, something like that.
And so the heat that it experiences is far, far, far less, right, than what an orbital vehicle does.
Um, so they've only reused one of these, they've reused, they've reflown one so far, maybe twice now, actually, because I on flight 10.
No, Flight 9, they reflew one.
And I think Flight 11, they also reflew one.
But I mean, they're getting to the point of like.
So this is the end of the version two.
So that version two rocket engine that you saw last flew on this.
So this is the end of the version two era.
Now they're moving into version three and version three Starship.
So Raptor 3 on version three Starship.
And this is going to be hopefully.
They've had some teething pains because this is extremely ambitious.
But hopefully, version three is like what finally unlocks all of the things that they're trying to do.
So, hopefully, it's all the.
Oh, by the way, do you see the UFO?
I did see something.
What was that?
You'll see it again.
It's an unidentified flying object for some people.
But it's actually a Border Patrol asset there at Brownsville.
It's actually on South Padre Island.
And it's.
That little thing up there, the blurry thing?
Yep.
It's a blimp, basically.
It's a dirigible.
It's tied down, but it's really high up.
It's like a thousand feet in the air or something.
And they have this camera on it and radar and stuff.
And they're tracking marine traffic to look for drug smuggling and stuff.
But it's so funny because it happens to be perfectly in line with this camera for us.
So, when people see our slow mo footage, like, what is that thing?
Did you guys see that?
The UFO.
It's like, sure, it's unidentified to you, but we actually know exactly what that happens to be.
Oh, man.
But yeah, so version three, when it's flying, hopefully, they have not yet deployed anything into orbit.
The vehicle's technically not gotten into orbit.
They intentionally leave it a little bit short because the last thing they want to do is get this 120 ton stainless steel vehicle up into orbit and all of a sudden have a problem.
They're like, oh, we can't get it back down because it would re enter uncontrolled.
It could land on us anywhere.
So, reenter in pieces and huge chunks of stainless steel.
Now, don't they have like NRO do all kinds of reconnaissance on these launches, like with drones and satellites?
They have cameras on it all over the place.
Yeah, on like, I mean, so yeah, there's range assets that will track these rockets.
And actually, we provide that really tight shot you just saw, we actually provide that to SpaceX during launches.
Really?
Because there's not a lot of optical tracking out there.
At the Cape here and at Vandenberg out on the West Coast, those have the old school, like, huge tracking trucks.
You know, and they're, you know, they can lean on those assets out there.
They can hire the range to do those things.
And that's actually now under the US Space Force, they do those tracking assets.
Right.
For us, and out at Starbase, there, it's like SpaceX's private land.
So they operate a private range.
So they have their own tracking assets, and we actually provide our tracking for them as well.
I saw a Space Force van like across the street from here one day, a long time ago, like on the beach.
Yeah, probably a recruiting van or something.
Yeah.
Because they basically took the Air Force, used to operate space vehicles.
They have their own spy satellites and network communications and a lot of space assets.
And it's been, you know, people wanted to make it the Space Force because it's like at one point the Army did all the planes.
And eventually, like, we need like a separate branch for the flying things.
And they call it the Air Force.
And now it's like, why was the Air Force operating space things?
So now it's the branch out of the Space Force.
So a lot of people that work at Space Force are, you know, they're called guardians instead of, you know, like a naval.
I can't think of all the different, you know, Marine or whatever.
They're called guardians, and they basically, a lot of the times, they're operating a lot of like safety of the range, but they're also operating a lot of satellites and doing a lot of that kind of stuff.
Yeah.
So they're just another branch of the military now.
That's bananas.
So you think they were probably doing recruiting stuff?
If you're just seeing a labeled van that says Space Force, yeah, it's probably some of that stuff.
On the beach.
Yeah, on the beach.
Yeah.
Hey, you, you want to fly satellites?
You know?
God, that's bananas, dude.
The other crazy thing, like, especially like when it comes to like all of the launches historically, like, With NASA, is they like the mission patches and stuff like that?
They're all like the iconography and the symbolism, like really, and even the naming of all this stuff, right?
Like ancient Greek mythology.
Yeah, what is that all about?
No idea.
And same, if you think that's weird, if you see like the NROL stuff, like there's always like weird, like seeing eye things, and like what about the NROL 16 one where it has Bigfoot, it has Bigfoot and like a pelican on there.
Who knows?
Put that, pull up the NROL, you know what I think half of it is.
I think half of it.
Top left.
What is that?
That looks more like.
National Reconnaissance Office.
It seems like that.
Or is Optimus Primal?
Yeah, I have no idea.
And I think, what if half of it is A, to confuse the hell out of anyone looking into these things, like, you know, foreign intelligence, things like that.
But also, like, hey, you want to know the club?
You know, join Space Force now.
You get to see what this patch is about.
Like, what if it's like a low key, just like.
A recruiting effort of like.
Hey, you can unlock it.
And then you get there and they're like, oh, yeah, Bob over there, his son has a toy that looks like this.
So we're going to patch.
It's like the most nonchalant thing.
But I don't know.
You never know.
And yeah, I like to think it'd be funnier to me if it's hilariously nondescript and means absolutely nothing.
Yeah, I mean, there's got to be like with all the satellites that are getting launched into space with SpaceX and everyone, like all this other stuff, a lot of it has to be super top secret stuff that they're doing up there, like weapons defense or.
You know, apparently they have like lasers up there on satellites that can shoot nukes out of the sky or like ICBMs, like maybe, yeah, divert ICBMs and stuff like this.
I'm pretty sure this is like declassified stuff, probably.
Yeah, and one of the big things now that the huge thing that SpaceX is sorry, I mentioned SpaceX just because they fly more often than absolutely anything, period.
Right, but they, you know, with Starlink, they also offer a military version called Star Shield.
It's basically this using the same like satellite bus, and they can say, Hey, you know, because we have, well, like I said, over 10,000 Starlink satellites, no big deal for them to throw some Star Shield up ones, and those ones might have.
Instead of being all communications, they might have tracking assets or whatever else that is advantageous.
But that's a huge military upper hand is to be able to have thousands of satellites that can be over any point at any time.
Right.
Now they cover the Earth.
Military Upper Hand with Satellites00:02:00
And you could literally say, I want constant eyes on this spot.
And now we've been able to do that with geostationary orbits.
The further out you are, so an orbit that's close to Earth, you're every 90 minutes, the bigger your orbit is, the The longer it takes you to go around.
If you get out to, I think it's about 36,000 kilometers or somewhere around there is where geostationary orbit is, and your orbital period is one day.
So that's where a lot of the spy satellites actually are.
They're farther.
They're really far away, which means they have to be huge, which means they have to have huge optics.
And also means they're limited on how resolute they can get, how much resolution they can actually get from 36,000 kilometers away.
But they're always pointed.
So because they're always pointed and lined up with Earth, they could be staring at one point on the ground 24 7, right?
But it's like I said, there's big limitations there.
Now, if you bring that constantly, if you bring instead of that one that's able to always see that spot, if you did a low Earth orbit thing, you're only over the sky for about four minutes.
It's zooming, it's whizzing by.
It's whizzing by.
And because of how close it is, just your field of view, it's like from horizon to horizon, it's only in the sky for four minutes.
So you have to have, if it takes 90 minutes, you have to have 90 minutes divided by four amount of satellites to be able to have constant visual line of sight in that orbit.
And so Starlink actually is to the point where you can have enough orbital services and orbital line of sight to anywhere on the planet.
That's why Starlink as a user works if you have a, you know, for internet.
Like, there's always at least multiple Starlink satellites flying over you to be able to get you data.
And instead of data, you can just have, you know, spy assets.
Right.
Yeah.
And I'm sure there's locations all over the world that they have to be pinpointed on at all times, like North Korea, Russia, China, just to make sure there's no ICBMs getting there.
Exactly.
What is this?
Oh, SpaceX is currently losing or deorbiting one to five Starlink satellites per day.
Interstellar Asteroid Hunting Methods00:10:30
Oh, wow.
So, what are they?
They're crashing them into the ocean?
They actually are fully demisable.
So they're made out of materials that won't make it all the way through reentry.
So they intentionally will burn out the reentry.
Oh, they'll burn up.
Oh, wow.
So that nothing, no mass basically makes it down to the ground.
And that's for public safety.
Because if you lose one of these 11,000 satellites, you don't want these things crashing down on people's houses.
No.
So they're made out of materials that are intentionally demisable.
So that's a space safety thing.
A lot more companies are starting to think this way that, like, hey, if we have all the stuff up here, at some point, especially in low Earth orbit, it will come down.
If you're further out, Like geostationary orbit, those are out there forever.
You'll never see, you know.
But in low Earth orbit, you know, the rate of decay is months for reentry.
So these ones, if they die, so for the most part, they try to do it preemptively and they'll intentionally deorbit.
But there have been some that they lose contact with and then just let it decay.
And within three to five, six months, they're deorbited and they're gone.
Dude, we had this guy on the other day who was telling us a story about his friend who got, he was the leader of this mission.
Called Osiris Rex.
Oh, yeah.
You heard of that?
Oh, yeah.
I know Osiris Rex.
Where they landed something on this asteroid, Bennu.
Yeah.
To try to find life.
Oh, yeah.
They're always looking for life.
NASA's the ultimate, like, let's find life.
Let's find aliens.
Like, that's almost the entire point of NASA is like trying to discover our universe, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Which is why I wonder, like, did they found some weird thing, right?
Like a weird protein or something?
Glucose.
They found gum is too, right?
Some sort of gum.
Basically sugars.
They found different sugars.
Yeah.
That could be like RNA and glucose, and these are the potential building blocks of life.
They found some of this stuff on this asteroid, which is like, now we're starting to put the puzzle pieces together of life.
And this asteroid was not interstellar, though, right?
This new asteroid was one that was in our galaxy or in our solar system.
Near Earth asteroid.
Not necessarily in our solar system.
Yep, in our solar system.
In our solar system.
Okay.
Yep.
Yeah, that was kind of bananas.
It is.
And this, I mean, what's funny is this mission launched, I think, in 2016 or 17.
Landed in 2022 or 20.
I think it landed in 2023.
So it's been, we've had the samples back this long, but that's how long the scientific process takes to be able to get samples out to universities to actually study it, you know, get it under there with a microscope and all the other fine things and look through all the samples.
I mean, they brought back a good amount.
I think it was almost a pound.
I think it was almost a pound or maybe more of material.
Maybe it's half a pound.
A good amount.
And to actually go through all that material though and actually look at, like, is there anything unique in any of these samples?
Like, any tiny bit of particle.
Is there anything laying in there?
And to find something out of the ordinary, you know, I would call it.
Fairly extraordinary in these circumstances for when just a bunch of rock dust, you're starting to see sugars that we've never seen in space before.
That's exciting.
Yeah.
I mean, also, if you can get, if you can find like minerals and resources and stuff on these asteroids that you can use to put people on there or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how possible that is, but the big one, there's a company called Astroforge who's working on mining asteroids basically.
Their whole thesis is, hey, There's more valuable rare earth materials here, which are quite abundant out in space.
If we just bring back a few payloads of this stuff and we start bringing back a thousand pounds of platinum, that's going to be worth profitable compared to the cost of launching it these days.
Now, are these guys working with NASA?
I don't know if they have any NASA contracts.
They're a private company based out of Long Beach or Seal Beach, I think, technically.
Yeah, I mean, it's all private enterprise.
They're trying to make a profit from retrieving material from an asteroid, which was not possible.
Like, this whole space economy is happening because we have lower launch costs and because there's more people making hardware.
This hardware like this no longer is like this completely unheard of, unfathomable thing.
Now we can buy a star tracker, which helps navigate in space off the shelf.
There's a catalog for it.
Like, Rocket Lab makes, you can just call them up and say, hey, I need a star tracker, and they can get one in a week.
You know, like it's like Amazon, it's like Amazon, yeah, that's like a way to navigate in space.
And like you can buy these things off the shelf now.
And 20 years ago, it's like one company almost everything was individually made one off for like every mission.
Almost there's very little commonality or commercialization.
Like maybe one company had their own in house built in star tracker and KU band antenna and you know, GPS monitor, whatever, whatever.
Things they would have, and they would kind of pull from their own inventory that they built.
But now it's like you don't have to do that anymore.
You can build a satellite.
Mark Rober launched a satellite last January called SAT GUS.
It was a selfie sat.
Literally, you can literally upload your photo and it will take a picture.
It will put your photo on a screen, and then on that screen, it has a camera that takes a picture of the screen so you can see yourself in space.
Oh my God, dude.
I mean, I know that sounds silly and I know it sounds kind of like frivolous and stuff, but that's.
The decline of civilization.
I actually think it's incredible because if you pause on it for a second and think about how many kids now, he has a huge audience for kids.
Really?
Oh, it's massive.
Mark what?
Mark Rober, the top 10 biggest YouTubers.
I think he has like 100 million subscribers or something.
Whoa.
He's 50 million.
He's way up there.
He's one of the top.
Have you ever seen those glitter bomb videos?
He's a former NASA engineer.
You've seen his stuff.
You had to have.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, the idea is now he has you know 100 million kids saw this idea that, like, hey, you could build a satellite, you can upload, I can see myself in space.
He did an amazing job of showing how they built the satellite, how it launched on a Falcon 9 on a ride share mission.
I think this could have done more to impact a young generation, as silly as it is.
And I mean, he probably did this for less than $2 million, which is crazy.
That's insane.
Like, if you could have said 20 years ago that for $2 million you can launch your own satellite, you would have been laughed out of the room.
So, this is a photo of like a real photo of his selfie on a screen in outer space.
Correct.
And do you have to pay for this?
Nope.
The wait list now is like two years, though, or something.
Oh, my God.
Because it can only operate during certain windows and has a downlink capability and all this stuff.
So, But it's orbiting.
It's in orbit.
That's insane, dude.
Is he the owner of Crunch Labs?
Yes.
That's that little kid's box.
Like, yeah.
Oh, the one that the guy brought in the other day?
With his kid?
Yeah, it was something like that.
Oh, shit.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think they have a kids show that they have the kids do those boxes or some type of building.
Probably.
He's a mega.
Like, he's huge.
How much attention did you pay to.
How close of attention did you pay to the three eye atlas thing?
The interstellar object?
A decent amount.
I saw a lot of it, I mean, it was definitely making its rounds on social media, but yeah.
I mean, and it has some cool things.
It's we haven't tracked that many interstellar objects before.
Yeah, I think this is is that what it is?
Three eye?
I never realized.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, I didn't track it enough to even realize that it was in the nomenclature there, but yeah, I mean, I think this is going to become more common.
Yeah, now that we can see them.
Now that we have better instrumentation, that's the beautiful thing about our species we just keep going.
When we first found one exoplanet, we thought, oh, maybe, and all of a sudden we're up to hundreds of thousands of exoplanets.
Everywhere we look, we find them now that we have the right instrumentation to discover them.
So I think this interstellar objects will become more common.
We know how to find them and we'll just keep finding them.
So I don't think there's anything, nothing that I've heard that was necessarily that.
Extraordinary about it, you know, other than the fact that it is interstellar.
So it's relatively novel for us at this point.
Yeah.
Well, he said it had like one of the biggest things that he was claiming was like the direction it was coming from was the same direction as the wow signal.
And also it had like an anti-anti-tail or something, like a tail that faced towards the sun, which I guess is kind of extremely rare.
Yeah.
I don't think we've.
So I think from what I'd read that.
So that actually makes sense because if the sun, the heat is, you know, expanding any trapped gases or any trapped, you know, if you have ice or anything like that too.
That would actually be the point of where it would want to eject, is obviously the point of heat.
So that actually makes sense.
But I don't know if we've observed it in this exact way.
Yeah, I don't know a ton about it.
So I don't know.
There was a lot of polarization on it online with people.
Yeah.
It's saying that he was being a little bit too open minded about it, potentially being alien of origin.
Who said that?
A lot of people were accusing Avi of being a little too generous with his assumption that it could be an alien.
Craft or something.
I mean, he made some crazy stuff.
He said some crazy stuff.
Did he?
But it's like, you know, he's a Harvard astrophysicist, right?
So, like, that kind of stuff coming out of the mouth of a guy who's like that legit, right?
With that kind of credentials, right?
It kind of breaks people's brains a little bit.
I think the thing that people might forget is that, like, anyone that I know that is in science, like, they're out there trying to solve, like, they want to find extraterrestrial life.
They want to find life outside of Earth.
Of Earth.
That's what they're doing.
Like, that's their whole point.
Their whole career's work is trying.
Like, that's the big question.
That's the thing.
That's the Holy Grail.
It's the North Star they're moving for.
Yeah.
And they're just constantly, you know, you're probing it.
You're doing the scientific method of like, what if X, Y, and Z, and you're trying to disprove yourself, right?
That's how the scientific method works.
So you could say, my hypothesis is this is an alien spaceship.
Now, here, everyone, here's my observations.
Now tell me why it's not an alien spaceship, is by definition, you know, the scientific method.
Social Media Misinformation Spread00:07:58
Exactly.
And so I love it when a scientist is open to saying, oh, this is cool because this looks like it could be the signs of what we think could be an extraterrestrial vehicle or whatever.
That's awesome.
But by it being in, you know, the way that research goes is then it has to go out in a public domain and people.
Start looking into it and compare with their results from their telescopes that say, actually, under infrared, we realized, oh, this is actually just, you know, zinc or whatever.
You know what I mean?
Like, there's, and that's, I think that's the beautiful thing about it.
And it's this open discourse and it's the critical thinking that I really think a lot of people, they don't even tend to ask themselves the second question in general.
Like, even in amongst social media now, you know, they'll see something, you go, boom, that's the answer.
You know, and I think that's really dangerous because I like to always go, what's the context?
What are other people saying?
What's the whole picture here?
Almost every time you find it, it's something often smack in the middle of whatever the two sides are saying or multiple things.
Yeah.
I mean, even when it comes to how confusing it can be to find stuff on social media, like out of context clips or whatever, and sharing that around and going viral, people think grasping onto it without people don't have the time to go research into the context of this stuff.
But also, there's people whose job is Probably like to muddy the waters to like hide the reality of 100%.
Whether it be like top secret technology or fucking aliens walking around, politics.
Yes, exactly.
Political motivations, foreign financial motivations.
You know how I mean, obviously, like TikTok now is as of like yesterday is owned within the US.
Like, I mean, I can't help but think that TikTok in general was already an arm of propaganda for China and that its only job is to literally take what people agree on and make them not agree on it.
And if they can do that, you can spread misinformation.
You can spread doubt amongst your fellow countrymen and your fellow humans and start to distrust everyone looking over your shoulder, politicizing everything.
You're going to get nothing done.
We're going to have so much infighting that they don't even have to do anything.
And boom, all of a sudden, that's the way you win.
That's modern day propaganda.
That's modern day war, literally, social media.
Yes.
And it makes me so nervous.
I'm happy that my video came out.
And it is publicly out my moon landing video because even if I produce that today or within the next year, think about how much easier it is to just dismiss whatever I say, whatever I show in that video as AI.
It's the truth is going to be buried in garbage.
Like, yeah, that's and we're already seeing that with everything.
People already have doubt in everything they see now because they've already, everyone in this room, everyone in this city, everyone in this country, everyone on the planet has probably already been fooled by.
At least one AI video.
They've watched a video and gone, no way, that dog's driving that car.
I didn't know an F4 Tomcat was coming.
80% of my Instagram feed is AI stuff.
It's made to look real.
So it's already over.
We already lost.
We already are sewn disinformation to the point of us not even knowing, not even being able to trust video anymore at all because it's so easy to make garbage now.
So, like, where do we find truth now?
How do we know anything anymore now that this is out?
It's like the worst Pandora's box thing ever.
It is.
It's like.
We're screwed.
It's too easy to make absolute misinformation garbage now.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think about that all the time.
Like, where does it go?
How do you reset?
How do you, how do you detox from it?
How do you?
It's just a hornet's nest of information, and it's hard to know what to pay attention to, what not to pay attention to.
Sorry, I bumped the mic.
This, though, right here, this face to face with a fellow human needs to become more valuable.
People need to understand you need to get out there.
You need to talk to your friends that you haven't talked to in five years that you maybe saw some posts that didn't agree with what you thought.
Get out there, make friends again, be neighborly.
Be humans to each other because I think that's what's happening.
People are like literally sewing, they're getting they're not even trusting their friends anymore, you know, because they're being divided.
And it's like, I have one of my best friends, actually, the one that we talked about at the beginning of the show with the moon landing.
We are opposite sides of the political spectrum, and about once, many times a year, we hang out all the time still.
Many times a year, though, we get together, we'll end up with whiskey and we just sit there on a campfire or something, and we just sit there and compare our like feeds to each other, and we just talk, What's your guy saying about this?
or like, you know, what.
What are you reading?
And it's crazy.
It's eye opening to sit there and have that open, honest thing and just kind of be willing to be like, yeah, that's weird.
And almost every time when we're sitting there, like comparing our things, I'm like, no, that's crazy because I heard the exact opposite.
Look at, you know, here's what I'm seeing.
And you look and you're like, oh, it's actually basically right in the middle.
Like it's, I think it's something way more benign and we're all freaking out about this.
Yeah.
You know, and like this face to face being out there and just being humans, we were not meant to be sitting on our phones absorbing information for 12 hours a day.
No, scrolling like this.
Like it's, right.
It's toxic, yeah.
It's mind, it's definitely mind numbing, and it's like a weird form of mind control coming from guys that make very long form content, right?
Right, we produce hours of content.
Me and you would have to be out of our jobs, yeah, exactly, exactly.
But yeah, um, it's crazy, yeah, it really is, man.
So that's the we're back to looking at the anti tail there, huh?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, huh?
How do you you can't really like we're on this trajectory with the way.
Technology is going and social media is going that we're moving so fast in this direction, it's almost hard to be optimistic about like where it ends up.
It is, you know, I am even with podcasts like, like you can say, like, oh, like this is great for me and you, it's not going to be great as great for like everyone else because, like, eventually this thing will get chopped up into bits and posted on X, used out of context, and used to like.
Skew people's opinion or the sentiment of what we're talking about into something it's not.
Like, I'll give you an example.
Like, oftentimes I'll sit here and do like a three hour podcast with somebody, and I'll walk away from it like with a very strong sense of like what I took away or what I like learned from that.
Right.
And then it's happened where that episode has gone out, and I've like had a bunch of my friends call me and give me their takes on it.
And then I'll read a bunch of comments on their takes of it.
And then that will skew my whole take, my whole opinion on the whole conversation in the first place.
Right.
You know what I mean?
And this is like a phenomenon in the YouTube comments, or on X, wherever, on any social media platform, where somebody will, or a group of people will like post something about what they thought about it.
And then a bunch of people will pile on.
And it'll create this like pile on effect.
And then a new person coming in, watching it, scrolling down to the comments and reading it, is not likely that they're going to just regurgitate.
Like it's not likely that they're going to post their nuanced opinion that.
Deviates from the crowd, right?
Exactly.
They're most likely going to want to just like fit in and, you know, like something that's in line with the sentiment that's already in the comments.
Exactly.
You know what I mean?
Yep.
Yep.
Which makes bots really useful.
Bots are very powerful.
And that's even assuming that people will see this podcast because if it's buried under 4,000 podcasts that came out that are also of similar lighting and style that are all AI generated, that people convincingly think is a real podcast and real humans talking about stuff, we're all screwed.
Regenerative Cooling Rocket Technology00:13:06
We're completely screwed because, but I don't know.
That stuff really stresses me out because I just don't see in which way that gets good.
Yeah.
Like, I genuinely can't imagine a world where I'm like, oh, This is a great thing, like, except for that.
Maybe if you're an ad exec and you're trying to sell an ad to Coca Cola or something, you can be like, Hey, I don't have to fire a film crew now, I gotta make way more profit.
I can just whip this thing up in Gemini in 10 seconds, and here's your thing.
Like, that's that people are just gonna profit off it, and it's just gonna be a decline of, I don't know, yeah, it's gonna be just used for more profit, more control.
Um, selfish, it's not a competitive like the internet, it's not very, I mean, it's like.
A handful of companies own the big social media platforms.
I mean, Google and YouTube is like the craziest monopoly of all time.
That was actually like funded and incubated by the CIA and DARPA of all places.
So that's not promising.
Then you got Meta.
Yeah.
And it's all just politicized to like the nth degree.
Yeah.
It's frustrating because I don't think we were meant to live like that.
I think our literally humanity is meant to be outside farming, hunting, gathering, and exploring.
Like, I think that's what's in our DNA.
And here we are doing anything but that, it seems like.
Yeah, yeah.
I think I might have changed my mind on this podcast.
I think now I might be willing to go to Mars.
And you'll go and people will think it's all AI.
Yes, exactly.
I mean, even with Artemis, like Artemis 2 happening again in 10 days or whatever, that's when the opening happens.
And there's going to be people that just immediately dismiss it all fake, you know?
Of course.
But there's 4K cameras on board.
And they'll see, like, you know, in this room, we have, you know, a lot of equipment that goes through, even like, You know, when an HDMI cable gets weaker, you know, you start to see like bit rate drops and things like that.
And we're just gonna be a lot of that in any of the live feed stuff where, you know, there's a downlink issue or a compression issue or an encoder issue or a decoder issue or whatever little blips and conspiracy theorists would be like, see?
It's like, well, my rebuttal to any of that kind of stuff, because they do that all the time on the ISS or even on the Apollo moon landings, if NASA's in control of all this and was making a perfect video that they pre made and then aired it, When they get rid of all the little fake blips and all the little, oops, the guy tripped on a wire and stuff like that, like those blips would be gone because it'd be a perfect thing.
So I remember when SpaceX first was landing their booster, a lot of conspiracy theorists would be like, see, it always drops out right before the booster lands.
And then boom, the video came back and the booster's there.
It's like, if they were faking this, they would just broadcast a prefaked video that was perfect.
They wouldn't have to have a blackout cut.
But the blackout cut is actually because.
The plasma coming out of the rocket interfered with the uplink that was sending the video out back to the studio.
So, like, literally, because it dropped out was actually oddly proof that it's happening in real life, you know?
Right.
Yeah.
No, the conspiracies about like space being fake and flat Earth and all that stuff is like, I don't understand some of those.
Some, like, a lot of those, it's hard to explain.
Like, what's the, you know, what's the motivation?
What's the purpose?
Why are they doing this?
Why are we going to all these links, spending all this money to prove you guys that the Earth is round, right?
Some of it's so stupid, but like, That's not to discredit the fact that there are real conspiracies.
Of course.
Like there's tons of them.
The US government has killed more people, lied to us our whole lives, and sold us out to profit from wars and all kinds of horrific shit, right?
And lied to us.
And they're still probably lying about shit.
And that enables people to fill in the gaps of, if they're not telling us the truth, we have to come up and theorize what could be happening here.
And that can be extrapolated.
Some people aren't equipped to see the nuance and shit, right?
So some people will see, like, oh my God, like, Kennedy was fucking killed, and the CIA knew about, you know, a lot of this shit.
This definitely wasn't Lee Harvey.
If you pulled United States citizens, like a vat, like it's more than 80% of them, I think we Googled it, believe that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone, right?
Like there was a conspiracy going on there.
Of course.
I mean, Watergate, the Vietnam War.
I mean, it's endless.
Yeah.
So, like, it is difficult to know, like, what's real and what's not.
Yeah.
And where does that line stop?
Exactly.
You know, it's hard to know.
It's hard to know that line.
And that's why it's so valuable to talk to people.
That, like, literally have like boots on the ground, like you, who are going to these launches, talking to these people, and you know, getting like nitty gritty into the science of it and figuring out what the fuck's going on.
Well, with Apollo, one of my favorite things is like because three of the missions didn't fly, we actually have the hardware in museums.
When you go to Cape Canaveral, when you go to Kennedy Space Center, that Saturn V that's laid out there is real flight hardware.
It obviously never flew, otherwise, it'd be in the bottom of the ocean.
And Jeff Bezos literally did an exhibition to go recover hardware from the bottom of the ocean from Apollo 11.
And then he donated that to museums.
Yeah.
Really?
Yeah.
So he, when this was like 10 years ago, 15 years ago or something, he literally spent, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars or whatever it is to do this huge exhibition.
He was physically himself on the ship to go.
And I interviewed him probably almost two years ago now.
And that's one of the first things we talked about is he's like, yeah, I thought it was going to be easy.
Like put in the coordinates for the Apollo 11, you know, trajectory where the booster, the S1C, where it landed, crashed into the ocean.
Uh huh.
He's like, I thought it'd be no big deal.
And then it turned out to be like this huge ordeal.
And there's just so much.
Look on that article on the bottom of the ocean.
That's from Apollo 11?
Yep.
No way.
Yeah.
Thrust chamber of one of the five first stage F 1 rocket engines used to launch one of NASA's mighty Saturn V rockets on the historic Apollo moon mission is seen at the floor of the Atlantic Ocean in this Bezos expedition image.
Whoa, March 20th, 2013.
Yep.
Scroll down.
That's bananas, bro.
Isn't that wild?
Where in the Atlantic?
I'd be curious.
How far offshore was that?
Only like three or 400 miles or something.
It's not that far.
Actually, click on that.
That's insane.
He was able to find that.
I mean, they knew where these things crashed.
So they had all the.
Oh, they knew the exact flight track.
Okay.
So they actually had the estimated impact within a couple miles.
Yeah.
You know, obviously, once ballistic trajectory, you know, when you're in space, you can track something perfectly to where it's going to go.
But once it's in the atmosphere, You know, it can kind of whiz around a little bit and deviate a little bit from its ballistic trajectory.
But they knew within reason, and most of the missions all flew within a similar flight corridor.
They had slightly different what's called azimuths.
So they're actually aiming on a different inclination.
A lot of that was obviously to line up to where they're trying to land on the moon, but also to avoid the deepest parts of the radiation belt as well.
They would slightly change their trajectories.
So they all landed within a certain region, but it turns out it was actually really hard to find.
You know, the actual engines from Apollo 11.
That's one of the engines, one of the F1 engines.
Yeah.
Isn't that sick?
I think that one.
That's insane.
That one, I don't remember if they have it at Kennedy Space Center, one of them at Kennedy Space Center.
They definitely have one of them at the Smithsonian now.
And it's unreal to see it up close and in person because you're just like, you just go to the sat on the ocean floor for 50 years, you know, 45 years.
Yeah, that is bonkers, dude.
So it's, you know, but I love that you can go see hardware.
And if you, you know, know enough about kind of basic rocketry, you can do the calculations yourself.
You can say, okay, I have, because a rocket is really just fuel with skin on it.
That's really all it is.
It's fuel.
And the more fuel you can take, The further you can go, right?
But the rocket equation is nasty because obviously, if you add more fuel, now you have to add more fuel to lift that fuel because that's weighing down your rocket, right?
So it's like, so it's just exponentially gets worse the bigger you try to make it.
So if you add more fuel, you have to either make your engines have more thrust or add more engines or whatever, or strap on those solid rocket boosters, they're called, just to literally lift the more fuel that you put in or whatever, right?
And so when you go and look at this and you look at the Saturn V, you go, okay, it's.
10 meters wide, it's 33 feet wide, it's this tall.
Here's how dense RP1 is, here's how dense liquid oxygen is, here's how dense liquid hydrogen is.
You can add it all up.
And I actually did that in my video.
I just went because I just kind of got sick of people saying things like that.
It's like, well, let's just look at the numbers.
Like, and these are actually relatively poor performing numbers.
Like, by today's standards, the F1 is horribly inefficient.
Yeah, it's really inefficient compared to Raptor.
Like, Raptor will walk circles around the F1 engine.
The F1 engine gets love and admiration because it's the biggest.
Single fueled rocket engine or single chambered rocket engine ever built.
It's massive.
It's cool as hell.
It's like an old school muscle car.
It's just awesome.
But by today's standards, we have way more efficient engines than the F1 engine.
And we're doing things, we did it the old way, and now we're doing things that are sustainable.
This was not sustainable.
It had to be hand machined.
Notice on the right side of that chamber, you can see those tiny lines, those little tubes in between the ribs almost.
You see those little tubes?
Yes.
Those were hand brazed.
That's actually fuel runs up and down the entire or most of the entire chamber and nozzle to keep it cool, to keep it from melting.
So it's basically like a radiator.
Like if you took a radiator and just turned it upon itself, and that's literally all this is tubes.
And they had to hand braze those tubes.
Nowadays, thanks to modern machining, they literally mill it out and they'll mill these channels down and use bimetallics and put like copper on one side and some kind of alloy on the outside to keep it structurally sound.
And they'll put tiny channels, itty bitty channels down the entire length of the nozzle.
Even like on that Raptor engine, even though the nozzle is only about, I don't know, I'd say a millimeter or two thick, fuel goes through it and turns around and goes back up.
The entire.
Do they utilize anything like similar to that with the Raptors?
Yeah.
So Raptor is like, if you look at.
Yeah.
If you look at like that.
So that's basically what's happening.
Right, right.
And it's going down and coming back.
That's a little confusing because it makes it look like it goes down on the outside.
It actually kind of runs parallel to each other.
So down one side and back up the other.
Like next, like parallel, not back or like inside and outside.
Yeah, that's called regenerative cooling.
And so almost all liquid rocket engines use this.
It's how you keep the chamber from melting.
And you can run an engine forever, basically, as long as you have propellant to do so.
Obviously, in space and on a rocket, you run out of it relatively quickly because they have a finite amount.
But if you were plugged into a pipeline or something with an infinite amount of propellant, You could run these things indefinitely.
They're more than happy to just sit there and run and run and run because they're self contained and self cooling, basically.
Wow.
Yep.
That's fucking insane, dude.
Yeah.
So, yeah, look up like Raptor engine regen cooling, regenerative cooling would be the term for that.
So, it's, yeah.
And that's how engines, but back in the day, they had to hand braze these tiny little tubes together.
And it was just, you know, stuff like that.
Like so many things were hand machined.
All the holes on the injector plate had hundreds of holes to inject the fuel into the chamber, and they had to be.
Like machined by hand, basically, because they didn't have CNC machines.
Right.
So when people say, you know, they destroyed the technology again, it's like, well, we would never do things that way again.
Right.
That's inefficient.
And we're trying to do things now in a way.
SpaceX builds basically a Raptor engine a day now.
Maybe even more than that.
Yeah.
So, and what's crazy to think about is they're building that many, knowing they want to be reusing these things.
Right.
So now imagine like the exponential growth we're about to see.
If traditionally you built a rocket engine and let's say you built one every month.
And your rocket, let's say, needed five of these engines, you could fly at most once every five months based on how long it took you to build an engine.
And then it'd be thrown away.
So that's your launch cadence once every five months, right?
Now, let's say you're building one engine a day, your rocket needs 33 engines, so you can basically build a rocket a month, but you're not throwing that rocket away.
Right.
Now, think about what your flight cadence can be.
Right, right.
If you're adding a rocket to your fleet every month and your fleet's just growing at that pace and each one of them is launching, SpaceX right now has one launch pad capable of flying the Starship vehicle.
They're building, so they actually just tore down their original ground pad for their original Tower One, it's done for now.
Artemis South Pole Landing Site00:03:29
They built Tower Two out of Starbase.
It's going online here in the next month or two.
They're rebuilding Tower One, so that'll be two launch pads.
They're building another one here at Cape Canaveral.
They're building two more on another pad at Cape Canaveral, and they're likely building four more very soon.
Like it's, they're going from, we kind of are trying to figure this thing out to as soon as this thing's flying and flying reliably, you're going to see it's going to be so boring to see the world's largest, most powerful rocket flying because it's just going to be flying all the time.
Because they're working on the infrastructure and the capability of having that at a flight cadence that we've never seen before.
And for the Artemis missions, for when they do finally decide to get people like boots on the moon, do they have like a plan for what their objectives are going to be?
So the first Artemis 3, I think they're going to spend a full week on the moon.
So they're going from the longest Apollo mission was three days, the first Artemis 3 is planned to be one week.
And that's still a shakedown.
That's still a basic, like, you know, easy mission compared to what they're hoping to do.
So, and do they know what they want to explore or what they want to explore?
They're going to be on the South Pole this time, actually.
The South Pole.
The big reason for that, there's two big reasons.
One, well, and they're kind of related, is because it's the South Pole of the moon, there's parts of it that are constantly in shadow because of like hills and craters and stuff.
Yeah.
Which means there's actually ice, water ice trapped in some of those shadows.
So, there's ice on the moon.
Like, we have evidence of that.
We've seen it in satellite imagery.
We're starting to see it in some samples.
And, We're working on really studying that.
And if you have water on the moon, you can.
That's one of the easiest building blocks of being able to sustain presence on the moon.
If you have water, you can A, drink it to live.
You can B, split it up into rocket fuel to be, you know, oxygen to breathe for yourself.
Oxygen is the oxidizer for your rocket.
You can have hydrogen.
So you can refuel your vehicle on the moon.
Right.
But the other cool thing is because it's on the South Pole, because some parts are always in constant shadow, if you're on the peak of a mountain or an area, you can have almost continuous sunlight.
Right.
So for 28 days, Unless it happens to be occluded by another mountaintop or something, you can have like 80, 90% solar coverage down there or on the North Pole, too.
So they could put solar panels there?
Yep.
So we'll be.
And a day is two weeks on the moon, right?
A day is four weeks, actually.
Oh, four weeks on Earth is one day on the moon?
Yep.
28 days, basically.
Holy shit.
I thought it was only two weeks.
So two weeks of daylight, two weeks of nighttime.
Oh, okay.
Yep.
Yep.
So on the South Pole, you're almost always going to be, and they're going to land on places where they're almost in continual sunlight.
Like 80 some percent.
Do you think if they got to the South Pole of the moon and they saw some crazy shit, they would tell us?
I would hope so.
I.
I, you know, I would think so because, like, you really do.
Because, how else are you going to get the public extremely interested in continuing your support?
If you say, if you come out with a big press release, and especially with Jared Isaacman at NASA now, like, if he had the opportunity to get public interest back in NASA and say, we discovered literally alien life or something, you know, some big crazy thing, like, they would want to share that to, you know, increase the public support and increase their budget.
Like, yeah, let's go all in.
Unless it was like, well, they could increase their budget if it was top secret.
They could say, this is national security and we have to keep this out of the hands of the Public, or else it's going to destroy society.
China could also take advantage of whatever we found, too, or whatever.
How can we weaponize this shit?
Yeah, maybe they wouldn't in that case.
Yeah.
Yeah.
UFO Publicity Stunt Explanations00:15:25
Yeah, I don't know.
I'm more keen to believe that they would probably keep it a secret.
I think it depends on how.
Or have some big plan on how to, how and when to really slowly drip it out and make it public.
Same thing with the whole UFO, UAP stuff.
Because, I mean, you saw that recent documentary, Age of Disclosure.
Yeah.
It's insane how many high level military people and pilots and all these people are talking about this stuff being real and talking about it in skiffs, non human intelligence, all this stuff.
You can't ignore it at that point.
So, either this is some crazy big psyop or it's real.
And it's like slow, like that.
We're just having a conversation about it on a podcast.
People are talking about this at dinner.
It's slowly becoming normalized.
And destigmatized as well.
And destigmatized to the point where maybe they could say, oh, we just slowly release this in documentaries over decades.
And then finally, we could just tell them.
That it's real and they won't give a shit.
They're going to watch Fox News or Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune or whatever it is.
Yep.
They'll go back to their regularly scheduled program.
Yeah.
Yeah.
See, my brain doesn't always go there.
I appreciate when someone's brain does go there right away.
Like, what if they discover something crazy?
I don't know how you could not be fascinated by the UFO stuff being so deep in the world.
Well, I am.
And like, I just haven't seen radar blips and things.
Like, some of the stuff is just sort of like, I've seen instrumental issues.
I've seen.
Our own video footage where people are going, Look at that UFO.
And you're like, Do I know what that is?
You know?
And I don't know.
I haven't seen a lot that's been like.
Did you see the thing that got hit by the rocket and then like it was like a blob and it was flying and then like a Patriot missile hit it or something like that?
And it like reformed and kept flying?
Yeah.
Not that.
That looks honestly like a weather balloon getting hit by a rocket.
What?
Yeah.
Are you serious?
Yes.
It like reformed.
But it looks like it like retook its shape after it got like smashed into pieces.
If you.
Clipped like a weather balloon.
And this is the funniest thing is I'm saying weather balloon when, like, that's the famous Roswell thing, too.
Basically, it's like, you know, they're like, oh, it's just a weather balloon.
But, okay, so.
So it's spinning.
Three pieces came off of it.
So, to me, if we're tracking it right now, so the reason everything, we have to think of relative velocities, right?
Yeah.
So this, we're moving with it.
Like, imagine you're on a boat and you're looking at a jet ski next to you, and relative to us, it's stationary.
That's why it's.
Stationary in the camera, right?
Yeah.
You have another velocity vector coming in.
So you have this other thing coming in from high velocity.
Now, this thing, it's not going to lose its velocity immediately.
It's still going to be moving in the same relative direction.
You know, just like, just like, you know, if you threw a football and you hit it with a, you shot it with a bullet, the football's still gonna land basically in the same spot.
I'll just have a bunch of, I'll have a hole in it, right?
I thought this thing like all like came back.
That it stops after that?
I think it probably just runs into the ground.
But the video stops, it just cuts to these guys.
It doesn't show you anything more.
So, you know, I think the reason that.
So, what do you think this could have been?
Yeah, so I don't.
This is where I like to say I don't have the answers.
I just don't know that I have the answers to tell me what it is.
Right, right.
You know what I mean?
So, but it looks like the first part looks pretty much like a guided vehicle because that turns, that makes a turn.
So that's a guided vehicle that comes into frame.
And whatever this is breaks apart and loses its most of its velocity and it's falling now.
It looks like it's falling.
Yeah, it sucks that they cut it short right there.
Right.
I would like to see what happens after that.
Well, it looks like pieces just fell off of it and it got hit.
I don't know.
But I mean, and a Hellfire, the thing is, if it hit something of low density too, it probably wouldn't actually explode.
The Hellfire wouldn't.
It wouldn't have anything to actually hit the warhead, right?
Yeah.
So it could just hit something if it's low density, like a balloon, and it would just kind of keep flying, but it'd get all like, you know, because it lost track of its thing and it's, that's kind of why it scutters off screen.
And now you have.
Just giant pieces of mylar falling off, whatever.
You know, I'm not saying that is the answer, but to me, Occam's Razor kind of says that seems more feasible to me than, hey, that's a video actually of a UFO with aliens inside of it driving a little thing and it re conglomerates and then shoots back off into space.
Right.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, totally.
No, a lot of those videos, even like the Go Fast video or the Fleer video, those can be explained away.
And I've heard them reasonably explained away how, you know, that doesn't have to be a UFO.
It could be a bird flying over the ocean or whatever.
And perspective of like, We are really, as humans, we're great at pattern recognition of like, I've seen this or whatever.
But as soon as you start doing optics and anything like infrared and things like that, and perspective with like motion, it's really hard to tell our relative motion versus, you know, if you're in a jet going 1200 miles an hour versus your subject versus, you know, the parallax and all that stuff.
We're actually really bad at that because I don't think we were evolved to, you know, we were evolved over however thousands or millions of years or whatever, thousands of years to recognize certain patterns in nature.
And, you know, when we're tracking prey or whatever.
Yep.
But we weren't evolved to have a 600 millimeter lens out of our eyeball to going 1200 miles an hour.
You know, like, right, totally.
That's just not even in our brain.
So I just don't think we're the most reliable source for seeing something like that and going, yeah, I know exactly what that is.
You know, totally.
I just think personally, there's too many high level military folks, fighter pilots, nuclear base commanders, you know, top level people in the military and whistleblowers and stuff like this who have come out and explained being exposed to these like special access programs.
And saying, Point blank that they, yeah, exactly.
They're in like a program, and there's a whole wing of the Pentagon and stuff like that.
To me, is actually, you know, a lot obviously, all of it is still hearsay from certain people, but these people do seem to have the right credentials and things like that.
That's the stuff, and I'm like, dang, that's interesting.
Yeah, it's like, and if it's all a lie, why are they all lying?
Right, right, right.
Like, why are all these people coming out and saying this?
There's these reverse engineered things they found in archaeological digs or whatever, and like, there's all these, I mean, you know.
Anyone can go and do the research on Thomas Townsend Brown and all these anti gravity folks and find out, like, read about what they were doing.
It's just not like mainstream stuff.
You can look into what they were doing and who they were connected to, like all this deep military intelligence stuff, and how it was real, something that they were really looking into before science got turned in another direction.
And now all of a sudden, there's like trillions of dollars missing and reports of all these companies, private companies that are doing all this stuff.
These whistleblowers are coming out and saying this.
And I don't know.
It just seems like there's something like.
Really big that's being hidden for whatever reason for national security, or if it's, it would totally make sense that if it isn't for national security, so that yeah, the enemies don't have that and it'll obliterate us all totally two seconds.
I just wish that it could come out publicly and be used for space travel because, like, how awesome would that be if we could literally just do like interplanetary travel in the blink of an eye and just boop like, yes, yeah.
So, I hope that's why, like, I want this stuff to exist and I hope that it does exist and I hope that.
Someone is reverse engineering and trying to figure it out because it would unlock even more, assuming again Pandora's box situation doesn't destroy us first.
Right.
So maybe that's the delicate balance.
It's like if they do have something like that and they do know how to do it, how do you prevent it from doing what AI is doing to us already?
Right, right, right, right.
Yeah.
And what the fuck do the astronauts know that we don't?
Are they hiding anything?
So I don't think astronauts, because really, like your perspective of what you're seeing is still minuscule.
Yeah.
You know, our eyes can only see so far.
Right, you're traveling at 17,500 miles an hour if you're in low Earth orbit.
Yeah, if you're going to the moon, you get up to 25,000 miles an hour and then you're slowing down the whole way to the moon.
Like, you're only seeing X amount and things that are moving relatively in your same vector, right?
Yeah, so in space now on the ISS, there's you can see tons of Starlinks because Starlink, there's 10,000 of them, right?
Right, but you only see them in the right conditions because they kind of have to be glinting off the sun, they're moving in you know, like you have to be kind of in the right position, you have to be at the right distance.
Like, there's so many factors into when you can see a Starlink.
But when you kind of know what you're looking for and you're in the right conditions, you'll see a ton of them.
Like there's videos of just like the whole sky, you know, in space, even in orbit, and it looks crazy.
But, you know, I don't think like you go, people always, I think they picture you go into space and then all of a sudden the UFO pops up.
It's like, okay, well, that UFO has to be going also 17,500 miles an hour on your same inclination in your same exact direction.
Is that impossible?
Of course, I don't think that's impossible, but does it happen to every one of them and all 600 humans who have been to space that are keeping some big giant secret?
There was one astronaut who talked about seeing a UFO though, right?
Was it Apollo 11?
Was it Neil Armstrong?
No.
And I'm trying to remember.
Because it was actually, we have the voice recording of it, I think.
Right.
And he's basically like, I don't know what that is.
And I don't remember the whole story.
Find out what that is, Steve.
I think it was Neil Armstrong.
Oh.
Multiple astronauts have reported seeing UFOs or bogeys during missions, with the most notable being, oh, it was Buzz on Apollo 11, who later clarified it was likely sunlight reflecting off the rocket panel.
Well, so what's interesting, again, because of that relative velocity thing, a lot of things you're not used to seeing.
So, for instance, I think it was like Mercury, like the second Mercury or third Mercury mission.
Oh, I think it was the third.
I think it was John Young was freaked out because he was seeing fireflies out his window.
Oh, really?
He's going, What are all these fireflies?
It was his pee.
What?
Because they vented his urine and it just, you know, you get these little micro droplets and it turns into little ice and it's just following you outside of it?
Yeah.
Whoa.
Outside.
And so it's reflecting off the sun, and it turns into like little ice chunks immediately.
And they're tiny and they're all over.
And it's a swarm following him because they're all in the same relative velocity.
They're all just floating out there with him now.
And he's freaking out, going, What are all these fireflies?
That's hilarious.
Or ice breaks off.
You know, there's a lot of cryogenic propellants on most rockets.
Right.
Cryogenic propellants.
And so the skin of the vehicle, while it's sitting in the atmosphere, will literally get covered in a sheet of ice because, you know, humidity and then it turns into ice.
And so it's stuck there on the side of the rocket.
As it's ascending, you'll see big chunks of ice falling off a lot of times.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Normal.
And also, it's normal when it gets into space that's still melting off and.
You know, coming off, you might see just chunks of ice, or you'll have vents like the liquid oxygen port.
You have to vent it as oxygen will boil off, and as it's going from liquid to gaseous, it expands a thousand times.
If you don't expand it, your tank will rupture, right?
So, they're venting it constantly.
And as soon as it vents, some of it will recondense back into either liquid or solid right away, right?
It's exposed to the vacuum space, and so you'll have these just chunks of ice just kind of appearing and like doing weird things, sure, just things that we aren't used to again, sure.
So, it's it is fun because it's type in.
Neil Armstrong UFO.
It's another crazy thing is like how all of their lives went spiral downwards after those missions.
So things like, you know, the Apollo astronauts all spiraled and stuff like that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Became alcoholics and divorced their wives.
A lot of that is just pretty typical of anyone that reaches a very peak of your career or your fame and has to come down from that.
I mean, these guys were the most famous humans in the world, and unbeknownst to them, they didn't sign up.
To be the most famous humans in the world.
They signed up to fly spacecraft.
A lot of them ended up getting chosen as Apollo astronauts.
Famously, Neil Armstrong was not the most outgoing human.
He was very, not reclusive, but he wasn't like a me, me, me center of attention kind of guy.
And all of a sudden.
See, Charlie said he was like the life of the party before.
Did he say that on your podcast or is that what Bart was saying on your podcast?
Oh, yeah, I don't know.
I don't remember.
I just listened to it again recently and I.
I think he was just like, he's saying he's a nice outgoing guy, but he wasn't like the life, he wasn't the center of attention.
Yeah.
But I remember, I thought I heard Charlie saying how he was more of like an outgoing dude, like life of the party beforehand and afterward, he sort of like was more of a recluse, right?
And that might be.
I mean, can you imagine that you yourself went on this insane journey?
Like, imagine even if you went on, if you were an Arctic explorer or Mount Everest, you know.
And then you had to just go back into regular life.
Like, or, you know, any of these, like, any of these people that have experienced something crazy in life all day, like that, then have to just go back to their lives.
But also, imagine you're the first guy to walk on the moon, right?
It's basically a big publicity stunt.
It was like, if it, like, it was real, right?
But it was a stunt to prove you were number one.
Right.
Right.
You're that guy.
You're like the Michael Jordan of the world.
Yeah.
So the US government would almost like require you to do more public talks instead of just two.
That's false.
He did way more than two.
He did way.
Really?
Oh, yeah.
People think he just like hit or something.
No, he was all over the place still.
How many public interviews did he do about it?
Hundreds?
Really?
I don't know.
Not two.
This is the kind of stuff that Bart will just say with full, absolute confidence.
Because I could only find that 20th anniversary he did at the car, 25th anniversary speech that he did, as well as the post flight press conference.
Oh, there's way more than that.
I mean, he's even, I've watched many documentaries where he's.
Still on it, like doing documentary stuff.
Like, oh, I mean, he wasn't going out and like milking it.
Like, I think Buzz kind of made that his career when he was done.
He went out and public spoke and he became a millionaire because of his public presence and his, you know, he was famously reclusive and granted very few public one on one interviews after his 69 moon mission because he wanted to avoid the spotlight.
Known rare significant public interviews include 60 Minutes 2005, CPA Australia 2012, Cincinnati Inquirer 2003 and 2009, and 50 Hours of Interviews to a Biographer.
I mean, he's also on, like, he did a speech at a college.
He did a speech.
I mean, there's all sorts of little things that weren't like big public publicity things.
And what's the one, When We Left Earth, I think, an HBO documentary or a Discovery documentary.
I mean, there's way more than that.
There's definitely more than two.
We can say that.
Maybe not hundreds, but I mean, it's not like the guy just disappeared and hid.
Right.
And, you know, when Buzz says things like, look at them at the press conference.
Post Flight Press Conference Details00:03:41
I actually had this originally in my video.
It is weird, the press conference.
No, it's not.
You don't think any of the press conferences.
Watch the pre flight press conference, watch the post flight press conference, watch the one two months later, watch the one.
That's what I actually did originally I lined four of them up with those three astronauts.
On your video?
Because I didn't want to just sit there and just dispute things.
I wanted it to be show it.
Yeah, here's how we know with the hardware.
Here's all the things.
But I originally had it where I just lined up a bunch of flight press conferences with them before and after.
And I said, tell me which ones.
Which part of the video is that asked?
We can see it real quick.
Oh, I didn't put it in the video.
Oh, you didn't put it in the video?
I had edited it.
I was trying to trim it down because it was two hours and 20 minutes.
Right, right, right.
But I had that lined up where I'm like, I wanted it to be like, do you tell me which one is the pre flight press conference?
Pull up the pre flight.
I mean, the post flight press conference.
Pull up the Apollo 11 pre flight press conference.
See if you can find a video of that.
Some of them are two hours long.
Right.
So when you find a two hour long video of people sitting in front of, you know, with bright lights, sitting there trying to explain a mission, that was, by the way, the post flight press conference was two weeks later.
Right.
So keep in mind, this isn't like they landed, they're hugging their families, and they're getting pushed into a press conference like, guys, you're home safe.
Yeah, they had to spend time.
Quarantine, quarantine, and all that.
I think 11 days, 10 or 11 days in quarantine.
Okay, here's the pre flight part one.
Play part one.
Just give us a couple seconds of it.
Give us some audio.
That's post flight.
This is post.
Down.
There you go.
Pre flight.
Give us some audio.
Some of these are like two hours long.
Scoot forward a little bit.
I've been to press conferences these days too.
And they just look like people looking trying to hear the crappy audio of the reporter.
Yeah.
I wondered if each of the three could tell us very briefly how the.
If you put sinister music behind this, showing that they're.
Knowing what they're guilty of, these three men are about to lie through their teeth to the entire American public and the world.
Dun, dun, dun.
You know, like.
Literally, and I even did that too.
I put music, different music behind it.
Yeah.
My family is mad.
Let me see what you say.
Give me some audio.
Five years now to become accustomed to this eventuality.
And over six months to face it quite closely.
Okay, so these guys weren't hired for their charisma, clearly.
Now go to the post flight real quick.
They're test pilots.
Not that one.
Maybe that one.
That one does count.
Does it?
Okay.
There you go.
Do that one.
The subsequent phases.
We would like to skip directly to the translunar coast phase and undocking, the transposition and docking sequence.
I don't think the compression that makes it sound like an alien spacecraft helps anything.
Okay.
But it's so so this is probably demeanor is not that much of different.
This is probably their least exciting thing.
They could put these are test pilots sure, and you're saying, Hey, now that you walked on the moon, now that you're home safe to your families, yeah, now that you're out of quarantine, what's that spike?
We're gonna shove you into this room for hours in front of a bunch of press people asking you dumb questions.
Click that, give me this questions you probably heard a thousand times.
Solar Corona Imaging Delays00:14:41
Could you actually see the stars and the solar corona in spite of the glare?
In rather flat regions, the footprint would penetrate perhaps a half an inch or sometimes only a quarter of an inch and gave a very firm response.
In other regions near the edges of these craters, we could find that the foot would sink down maybe two, three, possibly four inches.
And in the slope, of course, the various edges of the footprint might go on up to six or seven inches.
And compacting this material would tend to.
Produce a slight sideways motion as it was compacted on the material underneath it.
So we feel that you cannot always tell just by looking at the terrain what the exact resistance will be as your foot sinks into a point of firm contact.
So one must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough terrain.
We were never able to see scars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics.
I don't recall.
During the period of time that we were photographing the sonar corona, what stars we could see.
I don't remember seeing any.
Neil, you were a little bit concerned, you said.
So, and I guess one of the things people say is that Michael Collins wrote later in his book in the 90s about how beautiful the stars were.
Right.
Which contradicts that.
He just said, though, they were imaging the solar corona.
They had an instrument that they were using to see the stars.
No, they're studying, you know, the corona, like when we have an eclipse here, the moon perfectly blocks out the brightest parts of the sun.
You get to see the very faint corona.
They had an instrument where they're trying to image the corona as well.
And that's what he's talking about.
He said, Yeah, during the corona, I don't remember if we could see any stars.
And Collins agreed, I don't remember seeing any stars.
Like in that context of talking about imaging the corona.
Right.
Yeah, but in his book in the 90s, he talked about how beautiful the stars were.
Yeah, but he didn't say he didn't see any stars in the mission.
They're saying, Did you see?
He's talking, like if you go back, he's talking about when they're in daylight or something.
He's talking about when they were imaging the solar corona.
Because that's the time they blocked the sun from their vantage point.
So he's literally saying, I don't remember seeing any stars.
At least to me, it sounds like he says, I don't remember seeing any stars at that point.
And really, does any of that context necessarily matter?
Because we know, like, there's so many things he can cherry pick and be like, Yeah, I mean, it's weird.
But listen to it again, though.
Like, go back, I don't know, 20 seconds.
Okay.
So you can hear Neil explaining the solar corona.
I, without looking through the optics, I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what, what, Stars we could see.
I don't remember seeing any.
So he said during the time of photographing the solar corona.
Because that was the question was like, did you see stars during the solar, like while you're photographing the solar corona?
Like, that's what the press question was.
Right.
Okay.
And it's in context of that particular time frame of trying to do.
Yeah.
Because that is a time where you block out the sun.
And you'd think, you know, that the stars would probably pop out a decent amount during that time when you're blocking the brightest stars.
Sure.
Yeah.
I can see how that could be super confusing for people.
Because it's a weird thing, too.
Yeah.
You know, we're not used to being like, hey, what solar corona instrument were you using?
And how much did it block out the sun?
And to your point, though, about the pre flight and post flight.
Press conference, like their overall demeanor seems very similar.
Like, they're, they're, but do they look bored out of their fucking minds?
You know?
Yeah.
I mean, it's just so easy to manipulate people based on.
Yeah, exactly.
I'll find, I think even on my laptop in my original timeline, I think just off to the right, I'll pull it up later and see if I can find the edit where I had that part because you just can't.
Yeah.
It's just psychology.
And we know for a fact at the same exact time in history, the US government was doing fucking mind control with LSD on people to create Manchurian cannons.
That's real.
Yeah.
That's true.
Yeah.
So, like, you can't call people crazy for trying to, you know.
That's why I don't.
You know, my documentary or my long video, the first thing I say is, like, there's actually some great questions.
Right.
I understand.
These are good things to talk about.
Yeah.
Lots of times, though, unfortunately, the answers might be more benign than people expect.
Yes.
You know?
Right.
But lots of times, if you know the context, but my favorite, you know, is when Bart's talking about that whole thing, this is the weirdest thing.
He calls it a smoking gun, and it's the video where he's like, this is.
Not meant for public release.
I called NASA.
Oh, of the fake thing in the window.
That's just me, the thing in the window.
Yeah.
Dude, that whole, every, especially in the original, like that.
Pull that up so we can show it.
The Joe Rogan interview, when he's explaining it, like almost every fourth word he says is just like wrong, wrong, wrong.
Really?
Oh, he goes on to say things like, well, let's start there because I have a whole, if you want to break this kind of stuff down.
Yeah, let's break this thing down for folks.
So he calls this a smoking gun.
First off, the reason it says not for public release.
Distribution.
Yeah.
It's because this was like literally a film meant for schools and stuff like that.
It wasn't meant for like resale.
It wasn't meant for things were different in the 60s, 70s when you're handing out film reels, right?
Right.
So it started off with not for public distribution.
But ironically, what Bart forgets is this was aired on TV.
This was broadcast down.
This was?
Yes.
This is from whatever it is, blah, blah, blah, broadcast.
I bought a TV guide from 1969, from July, and it literally had this as a time block out for Apollo 11.
Really?
Like, literally, they, this was the reason we're seeing this is because it was broadcast down to Earth.
So he said somebody anonymously mailed this to him or something like that.
Yes.
You can find this on NASA's website.
Like, wow.
What is he talking about?
Someone.
You can find this exact video?
Yes.
I found it on, I found it in the official Apollo time web.
So for people who are uninitiated here, basically, pause it real quick.
What I think I can do a good job of summing this up.
Yeah.
I understand it pretty well.
So basically, what Bart is claiming here is that it, for the, Uninitiated person looking at this, it looks like that's Earth way out into space, right?
And you're like almost halfway to the moon because the Earth is so tiny.
But what BARD is claiming is that they're pulling off a camera trick here to where what they're really doing is they're looking at a circular window in the spacecraft and pulling the camera all the way to the back of the spacecraft, turning all the lights out and using a transparency that looks like the Earth.
Right?
To make it look like it's a really tiny Earth way out in space, when in fact, it's just a circular window and the lights inside are all turned off.
It's a camera trick.
And that little light is a work light, and they turn it on.
And basically, when they turn it on, you can actually reveal that, okay, this was a camera trick.
And they were really only in Earth orbit.
You did a great job summarizing.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
Thank you.
That's pretty much exactly what he says.
Yes.
And like none of that makes any sense.
So he started off on your show saying, well, they're trying to fake the four second delay, right?
And there's that guy that says, talk.
Right?
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
That's where he was kind of starting his whole premise of this whole thing is like they were faking going halfway to the moon.
One of the number one tells is that you hear a guy trying to fake the four second delay and helping them in the production to say, talk after four seconds.
First off, 1.3 seconds is the time of delay between the Earth and the moon, and 1.3 seconds back.
So you're 2.6 seconds round trip.
If you're halfway to the moon, 1.3 seconds would be a round trip delay.
So his whole premise of four seconds of waiting, why would they be doing a four second delay?
The delay would be 1.3 seconds halfway to the moon.
Yeah.
Round trip.
And where is Bart getting four seconds?
No idea.
That's a great question.
Just pulled it out.
Is that Bart's voice saying talk?
Well, that noise is in the original NASA tape.
It is.
Oh, yeah.
Yep.
Yep.
But that's so innocuous.
If you listen, there's again, thousands of hours of recorded transmissions.
Yep.
If you listen to any given period, anytime they had to hit a talk back button, right?
So you're picking up on any random thing someone else is saying.
There's three humans.
Someone could have been like, I don't know, I don't want to talk.
In the background, right when that guy hits, right when Neil's hitting the transponder to talk back to mission control.
Like, it could be as simple as that.
It might not be the word talk.
You've seen those like TikToks where someone says two things or the same thing over and over.
And if you put a different word, your brain tells you that's what they're saying.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
It could be as simple as that, could not even be the word talk.
It could be anything.
It could be anything that's remotely closed, but he told you he said talk, so therefore it's talk.
Like, none of that premise.
Why would they have a producer if that's what they're trying to do?
If that's the smartest thing NASA thought of, is we're going to have a guy.
Like, call in and fake the delay because you're actually in low Earth orbit.
We're going to make sure that, like, that's their plan.
Is there going to be like, guys, talk because it's been four seconds, you know?
Like, right, like, what?
No, why don't they bake in a fake delay?
Like, this is NASA we're talking about.
If they wanted to fake a delay, they would just put it on a magnetic tape and play it a second later.
So there's an instant or a real time delay.
So the astronauts can't make the mistake of responding within 2.6 seconds, round trip, you know?
Like, right, a guy saying, talk.
What you think is a guy saying talk is the silliest of all, like.
Okay, so play this.
Let's see if you can explain this away.
Play it.
So he's claiming that's a.
Give us some audio.
That's a window.
Right?
And now you're going to see them remove part of the Crescent insert and the photograph in front of the window.
So there is something in front of the window.
That was Aldrin doing that right there, faking it.
They also say this is the way 10 did it.
Apollo 10 faked it the same way.
And then you're going to see the real location.
Of the earth and the window.
And the window is actually, that's the window right there.
So I'll look, pause it there.
How fucking bright that is is pretty nuts.
If the earth is really that far away, is it going to be blowing out the window like that?
I don't know.
So you're seeing a little bit of the remnant.
The reason you could see what he claims is a work light or was saying is a work light is just another window.
Oh, yeah.
Rewind it about five seconds.
Play that again.
It's just the exposure is down.
So you see the rim of the window.
Go back to where it's dark and then hit play.
Yeah, play the play.
That's the other window, one of two windows.
The astronaut's moving in front of the window with the earth in the background.
That's where you're seeing some stuff get occluded.
Oh, you're right.
That is not a light.
That is a window.
That's just the window.
That's not even the hatch window, it's still to the left.
But still, they're exposing, they're still adjusting the exposure.
And they're still on.
Yeah, because if you listen to the transmission at the beginning of the thing, they're like, hey, before they start transmitting video for broadcast, they're talking on mission control to the astronauts.
Here's what we want you to do.
We want you to get a shot of the earth out the window as you're moving.
As you're talking about it, we're going to ask you some questions for the air.
Because they're trying to also make clips that the news can cut up for the nightly news and stuff like that, too, right?
So news channels want to say, they all want to have audio.
We need B roll.
We need B roll, exactly.
And the news stations need to know what they're looking at, too.
Yeah.
Kind of coaching him a little bit, like here, we want to make sure that you explain there's the terminator line there, we're seeing the earth, we're this far away, narrating it to that degree.
And then they say, and then we're going to want you to back up and show the interior of the spacecraft as well.
So originally, you can kind of see, you see all this motion.
The reason it looks like a spotlight is turned on or the work light is simply because he moved towards the back of the spacecraft.
The exposure is still dark enough to expose the daylight on earth because that's daylight settings.
Now, You're basically in a shadow, right?
You're completely removed from the sun except for what's visible through sunlight.
So you have to crank your ISO, open up your aperture, lower your shutter speed to be able to expose the inside of spacecraft.
It's relatively dim.
It's like being inside of a movie theater, right?
And so now everything that's out the windows is going to look blown out like crazy.
Yeah, but that's my question.
Is it going to be blown out that much if the Earth is so far away?
If they're halfway to the Earth and you're exposed for inside, Like, because when we showed this to Charlie, I'm like, okay, this is what your eyes are going to be.
So, this exposure is roughly what your eyes are exposed to inside the spacecraft, right?
This is basically right now.
If you're looking out the window, yeah.
No, no.
If they're just in the spacecraft right now talking to each other, right.
This is basically going to be what they're seeing.
Let it play a little bit longer, Steve, till the exposure gets fully exposed for the interior.
Well, don't forget they often had covers over the windows for this reason.
So, your eyes would be adjusted to.
Go back to where the interior is fully exposed.
Okay.
So right there.
So that's when they're in there and there's no covers on the windows and they're halfway.
Those windows are going to be blown out like that halfway to the moon.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, even like, yeah.
And actually, go.
If you go to my video, I hate doing the go to my video.
I really ask about the moon landing.
I do have a whole thing on the segment.
I'll show you the windows.
Yeah.
Because Bart claims A, they're circular.
There's no circular.
There is a circular.
Well, we actually found a 3D model of the inside of that module.
Yep.
Yep.
And the hatch window.
That's the hatch window, the circular one.
It's not.
Oh, it's not circular.
Nope.
It's, well, it is the hatch window is circular, but it's up here to the left from this vantage point.
Oh.
So the couches are right here.
You have the panel this way.
You're looking out the Z or X axis over there, like the left shoulder of the pilot would be sitting in that couch for that window.
The bright window is where they were looking out like during launch.
That's the one they can see straight up.
The hatch is basically up and to the left, and that's physically a round window, but with a square bezel around it.
So it doesn't have any round edges.
Mm hmm.
Like this whole thing, yeah.
We were looking at the paper giant lies.
We were looking at the 3D render of the module on some website that I sent Steve, and um, we didn't see any round windows, yeah.
But the hatch was missing.
Um, to go, uh, did uh, I think to the right, yeah, yeah, there you go.
I think did NASA fake footage okay, 107, yeah, 107 down up right there, yep.
Okay, give us some audio.
I'm going to copyright strike you guys.
No offense to the man that Buzz Aldrin punched.
Thank you for not doing that on the Charlie Duke one.
Apollo 11 Footage Faking Claims00:11:10
But when I heard him explain how he thinks NASA faked footage of the Earth looking far away during the Apollo 11 mission, I was honestly puzzled.
But I have had some people ask me to look into this particular video.
Are you?
Oh, that's awesome.
We better just look into it.
We just teleported you here from the video.
In a video called A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, Sabrell claims to have been accidentally given allegedly unreleased footage from NASA themselves.
I mean, I guess that's interesting to say the least.
In the footage, he believes it shows the Apollo 11 crew in low Earth orbit.
but preparing and executing a shot where they're going to make it look like they're far away from Earth instead of just right there in Leo.
He claims the astronauts obscured the Earth using a window of the Apollo spacecraft.
He also believes there to be a studio light in the shot, which is confusing considering he believes the shot was done in low Earth orbit.
Let's start off with his first claim that this footage was never released and was never meant to be released.
Well, not only was it released, it aired almost immediately after being transmitted back down to Earth on television.
The exact clips in question are Apollo 11 TV transmission 033 59 45 GET and Apollo 11 unscheduled TV 031 10 30 GET.
The reason some were considered unscheduled TV is because they weren't scheduled for live broadcast at that exact time.
However, the footage was being transmitted and recorded to all news stations so they could use it in segments later on in the news.
To claim it didn't go public and was never released publicly is simply a bold face.
Apollo 11 then Jeopardy!
In fact, The easiest way to find this exact clip is to go to a little website called nasa.gov slash history and read the Apollo 11 Flight Journal, where they have every audio and TV transmission throughout the entire mission in order.
But long story short, these were very clearly publicly available.
They aired publicly.
There was nothing secret nor unreleased about them.
So you can find that footage on their website?
Of course.
Where do you think he probably found the upload for it?
Like, I'm sure he didn't digitize what they sent him.
He probably just grabbed it from NASA's website.
Oh my God.
Literally.
The claim is that the astronauts never left low Earth orbit.
And the shots you see of Earth is just a portion of the Earth.
Let me ask you this.
If that is a window on the top left and that is a window on the right, why are they two different colors?
Steve, are you seeing what I'm seeing?
Yeah.
I mean, don't try to explain this shit away, Steve.
Just tell me what you really think.
I think that this on the left is the color of the spaceship.
Like the light is hitting the metal here and that's bouncing back.
And then this is.
The moon, not the moon, the earth, the blue ocean.
That's what I'm seeing.
So you think it's bouncing off the exterior of the module?
Yeah, that's what you're seeing.
Like if the sun is like over here, it's going to be hitting the.
We know the direction of the sun because of how the earth is illuminated.
Straight left, basically 90 degrees.
Right.
So if this spacecraft is turned away from that at all, that window that you're looking through won't have any light illuminating the window sill itself.
But that one is facing towards.
The sun.
So light will be illuminating the actual windowsill and any of the hardware there.
I see.
I deal with this all the time.
Like, if you're this is what's great about sun because sun illuminates everything mostly evenly.
So all you have to do is expose for if you expose for water, then everything else is going to be exposed the same.
It's not like the water is going to be blown out or the spaceship is going to be blown out and the water is going to be too dark.
I mean, the sun is hitting everything evenly.
Sure.
I was just curious about the color difference.
Oh, yeah.
It's the well, this is a blue ocean and this is the red frame too around.
Sure.
Okay.
All right.
That makes sense.
I get it.
I keep going.
And so the purpose of was that they were just trying to show, they were trying to get one shot.
They wanted to, instead of having to move the camera, they wanted to show everybody the earth and the inside of the camera.
So we only have one camera.
Right, but instead of doing a move.
They did it.
They kind of did a move.
You just can't really tell.
We have no real frame of reference.
No matter what you do, unless you zoom the lens, you moving the camera four and a half, six feet or whatever at 200 or 110,000 miles, that's not going to shift the perspective size of the earth at all.
Right, right, right.
So even if they were moving the camera to and fro four or five feet, That won't look any different.
The only thing that's going to move is the surrounding around it, right?
Perspective wise.
Sure.
Okay.
So that's why you start to see the.
Now, at first, they're close enough to the window that you don't see the other exterior window.
As they move back, it comes into frame simply because its perspective is becoming into frame.
Right.
And sometimes the edge of the window does start to kind of occlude.
And that's if you're using the window to try to make a fake thing, like hand holding a camera is the worst way to give away that.
There'll be parallax.
Like, all it's going to take, if that's low Earth orbit, And you're doing this, any left, right, up, and down movement at all is going to give away that illusion immediately.
Oh, you're right.
That'd be the dumbest way to fake the Earth out the window.
Play it real quick.
Being obscured by one of the Apollo Command Module windows to appear as though it's so far away.
So now they're moving back.
You can start to see it.
First off, there weren't really any circular windows.
So they see the circular windows in the.
See the square edge, though?
Yep.
Of the bezel.
Yep.
Yep.
On the outside.
So circular on the inside, square on the outside.
So that was the window they were looking out of right there?
Nope.
They're actually looking out the window.
So.
See, they're looking at the opposite side of these two windows, exactly what Steve's showing.
So, the one with the light that you see hitting the window frame is that.
And the one that they're looking at is that, but it's on the opposite side.
I think if you keep playing, on the other side of the door.
Okay, press play.
Now, the hatch window was circular, but it had a squared off housing with straight edges that would have been visible from any angle if you tried to use the edges to make a circle.
Oh, I see.
It is a circle on the inside, but the outside's a square.
I got it.
And then if you hit play too, I even show, like, I match it up to the model.
As well, okay, for some reason.
The claim also says they moved to the back of the spacecraft to make the window look smaller and therefore the planet smaller.
Now, this is true, they did move to the back of the spacecraft, and you hear them talk about that and you see it in the footage.
But if you were to move up, down, left, or right at all, the parallax would actually give away this effect, and that's just a horrible way to try and make the Earth look small.
If we want to know what it looks like when you try to use the window to obscure the shot, we can actually see this exact thing happening in this shot from unscheduled TV.
031 1030 GET.
But the reality is.
Oh, wow.
Which mission was that from?
Same mission.
Go back.
Look at that.
Yeah, you can clearly see it disappears behind the window edge.
And a straight edge, of course.
Mm hmm.
That's a terrible way to fake.
But that could have been the moon.
I mean, regardless, whatever they're obscuring, it looks very different than that.
And they keep going because then you see what Earth looks like in lower Thor.
Yes.
So if you're obscuring just a small portion of that, it looks nothing like that.
Right, right.
Nothing.
Yeah, you would see shit moving.
And then I think in a second I line it up too with the Smithsonian's 3D scan of this spacecraft and line up the windows.
And it's, this just didn't make any sense to me at all.
Like, you're right.
And especially, I think right here is where we line it up.
And so now that the back of the spacecraft on the opposite side, remember, there's an operator, there's three people in this tiny thing.
So he can only really go from about here to like, You know what I mean?
He's not moving vast differences.
It's a pretty small space.
And there are cables and stuff in the way.
There's a whole bunch of stuff.
It's just one of those things where I'm like, his whole premise, the things that he's saying aren't even the premise is wrong.
Like, why would they fake that of all things that they're faking?
Why that?
How, why would they do it that terribly?
Why would they go to low Earth orbit?
Like, he believes the Saturn V took off, right?
And he believes it got into low Earth orbit.
They went to space to fake it, right?
They went to space to fake it.
And they had, I mean, by the, why would they build that big of a rocket and then have that much fuel left over in the third stage?
That was physically capable of getting them to the moon and then just be like, you know, it's like, right.
So, he, the other things that he says that just cracked me up.
I remember one time he said something along, I think on Rogan's podcast, he said something like, no mission, no spacecraft, aerospace vehicle has ever flown on the first try, you know, has worked on the first try.
No NASA.
He says spacecraft.
He goes, the right flyers, 747s, nothing has ever flown on the first try.
Right.
But suddenly, the most complicated vehicle in the world flew perfectly on the first try.
Mm hmm.
That entire sentence is backwards because he's forgetting Apollo 1 fire.
Three people died before it even left the ground.
So it never, it didn't fly perfectly the first time.
It unfortunately had the tragedy of three people dying before it even left the ground.
That was Gus Grissom.
Yep.
Grissom, White, and Chaffee, I think.
And yeah, they, so right there, that's wrong.
Second, like every plane flies for the first time.
Like, when's the last time we heard of a test flight of a plane crashing?
Like, mm hmm.
That's not true at all.
He claims that the 747 in that same sentence, he keeps going on to say the 747 had 168 tries before they got it off the ground.
And he says 10 year newer technology.
First off, it flew first time, I think, in February 1969.
So, technically before the Apollo 11.
So, what are you talking about?
10 years newer technology.
It's the same exact era.
It flew on the first try.
168 of them didn't crash.
What are you talking about?
And he just says it so confidently.
Like, you know, the 747, which.
10 years newer technology, you know, took 168 triathlete off the ground.
No, yeah, none of that sentence is true.
There's not one 747 is about the only thing that he said correct in that sentence.
Oh my god, like I just don't get it.
And there's things like that that are just like, I just don't know where these even begin to come from in his head, where it's just like he's just having fun, he's just, yeah, or he's made a million dollars off a documentary and is still milking the ability to sell books and all these things off of this.
Thing.
And the more fanatical his claims are, and the more just like, yeah, they can't even do it today, you know, that kind of stuff.
Like he's just able to make more money and continue to be in the spotlight.
Yeah, maybe.
And I think you're right about a lot of the other things too, like the shadows.
I think you made a really good point about the shadows, right?
Like the closer you get to something, the more they converge.
And the way you had a whole segment in that video that explains the shadows, and that makes perfect sense.
So I think he's wrong about that, as well as like the angle of that rock or whatever.
Truth About Apollo Shadows00:02:17
People want to know, go tell your video.
What's the title of it?
I think it's just the truth about the Apollo.
The truth about the Apollo on your channel is the best.
It is the best comprehensive breakdown of the whole thing that exists.
So, anyone who's out listening to this, you want a condensed version of this podcast, go watch that.
I don't know if it's going to be that condensed.
It's pretty long on its own.
We just did four hours, bro.
Really?
Yeah.
This is getting.
I was on Friedman on Lex's podcast.
I think it was five hours.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
We should break that record.
Let's keep going.
I'm just kidding.
When was that?
That was a couple years ago.
I think two or three years ago.
I didn't even see that one.
Yeah, yeah.
It was at the time, like, it was fun because we were talking.
I remember the big thing at the time was they hadn't caught, I don't even think they had launched, maybe they had launched a Starship, but they hadn't caught one yet.
And I was describing to Lex, like, they're going to try and catch it.
And he's like, no, they are not.
You know, it was insane.
It was like, and he just couldn't believe that they're going to try doing this.
And then, like, fast forward to just a few months later, and they already caught one.
And, like, I love that kind of stuff when it goes from batshit crazy, this is never going to happen, to like, oh, yeah, that's actually just the way we're going to do things now.
Yeah.
I love that.
Well, dude, I really enjoyed this podcast, man.
And it's perfect that they're getting ready to launch that Artemis mission in two weeks.
So, we couldn't have timed this any better.
We got Patreon questions.
We got our Patreons got some personal questions for you.
We'll do so.
We'll wrap up the podcast.
Awesome.
And we'll go do that.
But before, tell people about Everyday Astronaut on YouTube.
Yep.
Where else can people find you?
Wherever you're on the internet, you'll probably find it.
Just type in Everyday Astronaut and you'll find all your stuff.
Yep.
You'll find it.
I've got, I just released, I play music as well.
So, any music you've ever seen in my videos is my own music.
Just released a new album that you can find anywhere.
It's all just kind of background y, like chill indie rock stuff.
And, Yeah, everyday astronaut find it there too.
But yeah, I'm on YouTube.
I'm on all the things, and you can join us live for Artemis 2.
We'll be hosting.
Oh, you live stream it?
Yep.
We'll be live streaming 4K with the whole trailer and a whole team of, you know, six or seven people, I think, are coming out to track it and watch the mission.
And yeah, that's been super fun.
I think I'm going to probably go check it out too.