Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,334 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,478,517
Pageviews Today: 2,126,136Threads Today: 471Posts Today: 12,830
08:44 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 658249
Netherlands
02/17/2013 12:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s


[link to www.youtube.com]

charlie
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
02/17/2013 05:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 658249


And? What are you trying to say here?
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
02/17/2013 07:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Oh, he doesn't want to spell it out. Heck, he doesn't even want to think it out. Because then he might realize how stupid he was. As long as he doesn't actually let himself be aware of details, then he can go about his pre-existing beliefs.
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
02/17/2013 07:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Oh, he doesn't want to spell it out. Heck, he doesn't even want to think it out. Because then he might realize how stupid he was. As long as he doesn't actually let himself be aware of details, then he can go about his pre-existing beliefs.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Yep.

I'm just trying to get him to nail it down. Is he saying the computers aren't good enough? Or they were? Of course none of the hoax believers realize that orbital mechanics can be worked out by hand with a slide rule.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
02/18/2013 03:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
I actually have the opposite reaction. Maybe because I've worked a bit with embedded computing, and been doing productive work on a computer since 1985; I'm not so misled and enthralled by fancy graphics, for instance.

In any case, even though I know something of the history of computing, every time I read more about, say, the AGC I am impressed anew by just how capable that little machine was and what it could do. And by how nicely designed it was.

I don't know how someone could look at the 70's and think that was so quaintly old-fashioned space flight was beyond them. This was the time of the 747, Concorde, Trieste, ICBMs and nuclear submarines, the beginnings of the digital age and the Internet Age. Composite materials, hybrid engines, biotechnology, SEM, micro-fabrication. All of that was already here.

And of course there's the other part of the argument. Yes, the digital revolution arrived. Computers are more compact and more capable, and digital allows more capable sensors and more robust data transmission...and of course there are advances in cybernetics and control loops and telerobotics and machine intelligence.

And all of that DOES make spaceflight "easier." It just doesn't do it in quite the way the callow thinkers imagine. Technological change is not straight-line extrapolation. A modern automobile is not a 1970's muscle car with even more compression and and even louder engine.

We didn't gain the ability to throw two-hundred pound fragile meat bags into orbit cheaper. We gained the ability to do more with smaller, lighter, and cheaper electronics packages. Space flight is more advanced, yes. And that's why it is mostly robotic now.
60s not 70s
User ID: 32968182
United States
02/18/2013 05:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
I actually have the opposite reaction. Maybe because I've worked a bit with embedded computing, and been doing productive work on a computer since 1985; I'm not so misled and enthralled by fancy graphics, for instance.

In any case, even though I know something of the history of computing, every time I read more about, say, the AGC I am impressed anew by just how capable that little machine was and what it could do. And by how nicely designed it was.

I don't know how someone could look at the 70's and think that was so quaintly old-fashioned space flight was beyond them. This was the time of the 747, Concorde, Trieste, ICBMs and nuclear submarines, the beginnings of the digital age and the Internet Age. Composite materials, hybrid engines, biotechnology, SEM, micro-fabrication. All of that was already here.

And of course there's the other part of the argument. Yes, the digital revolution arrived. Computers are more compact and more capable, and digital allows more capable sensors and more robust data transmission...and of course there are advances in cybernetics and control loops and telerobotics and machine intelligence.

And all of that DOES make spaceflight "easier." It just doesn't do it in quite the way the callow thinkers imagine. Technological change is not straight-line extrapolation. A modern automobile is not a 1970's muscle car with even more compression and and even louder engine.

We didn't gain the ability to throw two-hundred pound fragile meat bags into orbit cheaper. We gained the ability to do more with smaller, lighter, and cheaper electronics packages. Space flight is more advanced, yes. And that's why it is mostly robotic now.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


What does,this have to do with anything? Last History book I saw said we landed in the sixties, not the 70s. The time of prop commercial airplanes, flower power and room sized behemoth computers which ran assembly language PROGRAMS MEASURED IN KILOBYTES, and COBOL, and Fortan. They ran program which could add and subtract rapidly but no large system simulations were done.

You guys are right, they went to the moon with a slide rule, duct tape and a lunar module with gold foil on the outside escaping the moons 1/6 gravity without a fuel tank holding 1/6 the fuel they used to escape earths gravity.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5146667
United States
02/18/2013 05:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
we didn't walk around and drive moon buggies on the moon, get over it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20906040
United States
02/18/2013 06:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
you moon people are fucking stupid, it doesn't matter if we went there or not. there's no cheese there. so who gives a fuck about the moon.....unless you count the tidal thingy//




STFU!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20906040
United States
02/18/2013 06:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
you moon people are fucking stupid, it doesn't matter if we went there or not. there's no cheese there. so who gives a fuck about the moon.....unless you count the tidal thingy//




STFU!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20906040


If you honestly don't see the, to put it mildly, credibility problem regarding a government potentially lying to its people about something of this magnitude...
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


Of course!! but it's been a never ending argument just like the atheist/bible thumpers bullshit. its the same shit over and fucking over again... how much more can this be argued out?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5146667
United States
02/18/2013 06:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
i just can't take listening to these NASA knob slobbers go on and on about the moon when there IS tons of evidence and LOGIC supporting the opposite.. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THERE ARE MOON CARS PARKED ON THE MOON THIS VERY MOMENT?? moon cars! ... friggen full size.. giant moon buggies.. it's retarded
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33509776
United Kingdom
02/18/2013 06:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
you cant just build it again
the infra structure needed is where the task is

in england a group decided to build a new steam engine,it took 18 years [link to news.bbc.co.uk]
and thats just a steam engine lol

imho the moon landings took place,they just didnt get there using what they claim to have used.
imho the craft they actually got there in was of german design,and still secret to this day
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
02/18/2013 08:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
I actually have the opposite reaction. Maybe because I've worked a bit with embedded computing, and been doing productive work on a computer since 1985; I'm not so misled and enthralled by fancy graphics, for instance.

In any case, even though I know something of the history of computing, every time I read more about, say, the AGC I am impressed anew by just how capable that little machine was and what it could do. And by how nicely designed it was.

I don't know how someone could look at the 70's and think that was so quaintly old-fashioned space flight was beyond them. This was the time of the 747, Concorde, Trieste, ICBMs and nuclear submarines, the beginnings of the digital age and the Internet Age. Composite materials, hybrid engines, biotechnology, SEM, micro-fabrication. All of that was already here.

And of course there's the other part of the argument. Yes, the digital revolution arrived. Computers are more compact and more capable, and digital allows more capable sensors and more robust data transmission...and of course there are advances in cybernetics and control loops and telerobotics and machine intelligence.

And all of that DOES make spaceflight "easier." It just doesn't do it in quite the way the callow thinkers imagine. Technological change is not straight-line extrapolation. A modern automobile is not a 1970's muscle car with even more compression and and even louder engine.

We didn't gain the ability to throw two-hundred pound fragile meat bags into orbit cheaper. We gained the ability to do more with smaller, lighter, and cheaper electronics packages. Space flight is more advanced, yes. And that's why it is mostly robotic now.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


What does,this have to do with anything? Last History book I saw said we landed in the sixties, not the 70s. The time of prop commercial airplanes, flower power and room sized behemoth computers which ran assembly language PROGRAMS MEASURED IN KILOBYTES, and COBOL, and Fortan. They ran program which could add and subtract rapidly but no large system simulations were done.

You guys are right, they went to the moon with a slide rule, duct tape and a lunar module with gold foil on the outside escaping the moons 1/6 gravity without a fuel tank holding 1/6 the fuel they used to escape earths gravity.
 Quoting: 60s not 70s 32968182


Argument from incredulence. How amusing.
Why should the fuel tank be 1/6 the size? The Saturn V had to carry itself, the spacecraft for the rest of the mission, the fuel used to get to orbit AND the fuel needed for the entire rest of the mission. It also had to do that through air resistance AND it not only got them into orbit but also propelled them toward the Moon. The LM only needed the fuel to launch PART of the LM off the Moon and into lunar orbit. That is it.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
02/18/2013 08:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Another thing...when Presidents and the NASA heads whom they appoint, talk about "returning" (cough! cough!) a manned mission to the moon, they say it would take 12 years. Huh?! With 1960s technology it ALLEGEDLY took us 8 years. Why, with 2010s technology, would it take us 12?

A couple years ago amid much speculation that we didn't go to the moon, NASA made headlines in newspapers and magazines across the country and the world, announcing that it was going to publish a book that would prove once and for all we went to the moon. A few months passed. NASA quietly cancelled their book plans. No reason given. Oops! Looks like the idealistic, modern-day NASA guys just discovered that the Apollo "landings" were fraudulent.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


Would they have the same budget they did then? No. Are they going to do the same thing? No. They went for at most a few days with Apollo and landed two men at a time and returned. Any venture there now will be for more men, for a longer time, and to try to maintain a lasting presence there. That you can't see why there would be a difference between those is very telling about you.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
02/18/2013 08:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Think, people...If we successfully landed 6 missions on the moon, why wouldn't we simply use the same equipment and materials and go again, say, next year? After all, if it worked so well in the past, why change it? No need to experiment or test. We already know what works, right? We don't even need to develop a rocket. The Saturn V worked perfectly, right? Why waste time, money, and possibly lives developing, building, and testing new technology.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


Do we have the infrastructure to build a Saturn V anymore? Do we have the custom tooling that was needed to make each part? Is the Saturn V necessarily the best way to get there?
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
02/18/2013 08:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Why didn't Russia ever send men to the moon, you may ask. Russia lacked one thing. Hollywood.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


No, Russia lacked a working heavy lifting rocket. Their N-1 had a nasty habit of exploding. They did however have an active Moon program until 1974 when they finally gave up. Why work that long if they knew it was impossible?
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29627848
Belgium
02/18/2013 09:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Think, people...If we successfully landed 6 missions on the moon, why wouldn't we simply use the same equipment and materials and go again, say, next year? After all, if it worked so well in the past, why change it? No need to experiment or test. We already know what works, right? We don't even need to develop a rocket. The Saturn V worked perfectly, right? Why waste time, money, and possibly lives developing, building, and testing new technology.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


Do we have the infrastructure to build a Saturn V anymore? Do we have the custom tooling that was needed to make each part? Is the Saturn V necessarily the best way to get there?
 Quoting: Weasel_Turbine

Nope - if you expect preppers to make their own Saturn V after TSHTF, forget it.
skogsgud

User ID: 34552975
Norway
02/18/2013 09:30 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
The Moon is made of cheese.Odins(Norse god)ravens Hugin and Munin flies up there once a month an it it.tounge
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 658249
Netherlands
02/18/2013 09:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 658249


And? What are you trying to say here?
 Quoting: Weasel_Turbine


all that to fake something?
that's what I was trying to say.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
02/18/2013 02:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
What does,this have to do with anything? Last History book I saw said we landed in the sixties, not the 70s. The time of prop commercial airplanes, flower power and room sized behemoth computers which ran assembly language PROGRAMS MEASURED IN KILOBYTES, and COBOL, and Fortan. They ran program which could add and subtract rapidly but no large system simulations were done.

You guys are right, they went to the moon with a slide rule, duct tape and a lunar module with gold foil on the outside escaping the moons 1/6 gravity without a fuel tank holding 1/6 the fuel they used to escape earths gravity.
 Quoting: 60s not 70s 32968182


The first landing was in 1969. The program ended in 1975.

And the technologies I spoke of were already mature by then. The space shuttle, as a for-instance, was developed while Apollo was still flying. It isn't a spacecraft from another decade.

Turbofan aircraft were already mature. Concorde, the SR-71, the U2. The Lockheed Starfighter, and of course the 747 "jumbo jet" -- hardly a prop plane!

My first computer had 64K of RAM, and you want to know something interesting? It booted faster than the 2012 laptop I use now, and on it I could open a word processor, compose, spell-check, and print just as fast as I can now. The printer was a hair faster, too.

You have to separate in your mind what a computer CAN do from what it HAS to do. Spacecraft aren't shooters. You don't need fancy graphics or surround sound to run an approach radar.

Heck...there were computers that would calculate the motion of a battleship, winds, even Coriolis -- hundreds of different factors, calculated in real time, in order to drop a naval shell on a target five miles away. And those computers were made with gears and cams!

And of course, there are people running drones now which can fly themselves, autonomously plot a course from one preset waypoint to another, report back position...and all of this on a chip slogging along at 20 kHz and with a whopping 32K of program space. And those specs...are actually overkill.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
02/18/2013 02:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
i just can't take listening to these NASA knob slobbers go on and on about the moon when there IS tons of evidence and LOGIC supporting the opposite.. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THERE ARE MOON CARS PARKED ON THE MOON THIS VERY MOMENT?? moon cars! ... friggen full size.. giant moon buggies.. it's retarded
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5146667


No.


Do you think if you took the time to learn something about the actual Apollo Program, you might find it more plausible?
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
02/18/2013 02:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Think, people...If we successfully landed 6 missions on the moon, why wouldn't we simply use the same equipment and materials and go again, say, next year? After all, if it worked so well in the past, why change it? No need to experiment or test. We already know what works, right? We don't even need to develop a rocket. The Saturn V worked perfectly, right? Why waste time, money, and possibly lives developing, building, and testing new technology.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


Yes...why would we?

We did it, multiple times.

In fact, we already had the rockets, had the missions on the drawing board, and had spent most of the money.

But neither the new administration nor the public cared enough to fund it. So they cut the budget and broke up the rockets.

Because just repeating the same lunar mission over and over again is pointless.



Here's a question for you. If you think it is strange they didn't "go again," how many missions would it take before you accepted it as normal? One mission was obviously not enough. Two? Three? The six that actually went? Perhaps you'd be convinced if there were seven? Maybe you want an even dozen? How about one per year, up to the present day?

Think about that. And think about any similar industry -- from warplanes to private cars -- that would think it would be a good idea to continue making the identical model using identical methods through the decades even as costs rise, suppliers shut their doors, new materials and new techniques become available...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32300607
United States
02/19/2013 03:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Very simple: the reason we don't go now, is because we didn't go then.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


boy the shills really come out of the woodworks on these moon mission hoax threads don't they?? You people can try and baffle us with slide rules and how "powerful" computers were in the sixties..but you can't b.s. your way over common sense. Our rocket tests were just as disatrous as the Russians. They decided to change tactics, it was brilliant, and effective(at the time). Think Argo, intelligence agencies faking a movie, to do a mission..that's real and declassified. This is just the exact opposite, but same concept..faking a mission with film. Common sense, allow me to share some with you: after years of failure, and realizing that the technology just couldn't safely send men to the moon(STILL can't in friggin 2013!) and WAY over budget with dismal results..and running out of time with Russia and the American public, they had to come up with SOMETHING. They were in a VERY bad position, so much money wasted, promises made, a cold war that they cannot afford to lose..what do you do? Hmm..well we cannot PHYSICALLY get there, but we do have ONE claim to fame..Hollywood. We were and ARE extremely good at fantasy, and making it seem as realistic as possible. And that, my friends..is the truth.
Face Palmer
Yo mamma pulls catapults to gondor

User ID: 34739817
Germany
02/19/2013 04:03 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
What does,this have to do with anything? Last History book I saw said we landed in the sixties, not the 70s. The time of prop commercial airplanes, flower power and room sized behemoth computers which ran assembly language PROGRAMS MEASURED IN KILOBYTES, and COBOL, and Fortan. They ran program which could add and subtract rapidly but no large system simulations were done.

You guys are right, they went to the moon with a slide rule, duct tape and a lunar module with gold foil on the outside escaping the moons 1/6 gravity without a fuel tank holding 1/6 the fuel they used to escape earths gravity.
 Quoting: 60s not 70s 32968182


The first landing was in 1969. The program ended in 1975.

And the technologies I spoke of were already mature by then. The space shuttle, as a for-instance, was developed while Apollo was still flying. It isn't a spacecraft from another decade.

Turbofan aircraft were already mature. Concorde, the SR-71, the U2. The Lockheed Starfighter, and of course the 747 "jumbo jet" -- hardly a prop plane!

My first computer had 64K of RAM, and you want to know something interesting? It booted faster than the 2012 laptop I use now, and on it I could open a word processor, compose, spell-check, and print just as fast as I can now. The printer was a hair faster, too.

You have to separate in your mind what a computer CAN do from what it HAS to do. Spacecraft aren't shooters. You don't need fancy graphics or surround sound to run an approach radar.

Heck...there were computers that would calculate the motion of a battleship, winds, even Coriolis -- hundreds of different factors, calculated in real time, in order to drop a naval shell on a target five miles away. And those computers were made with gears and cams!

And of course, there are people running drones now which can fly themselves, autonomously plot a course from one preset waypoint to another, report back position...and all of this on a chip slogging along at 20 kHz and with a whopping 32K of program space. And those specs...are actually overkill.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Yeah, computers might not have been as fast as today back then, but they still would own any mathematicans ass regarding calculation of the required stuff. I'm also sceptical about wether we have been there or not. In the end it does not matter much. But the computers sure had enough horsepower back then.
"The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title."

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
#Geomagnetic_Storm#
"Amateur Meteorologist"

User ID: 1426914
United States
02/19/2013 04:11 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
i just can't take listening to these NASA knob slobbers go on and on about the moon when there IS tons of evidence and LOGIC supporting the opposite.. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THERE ARE MOON CARS PARKED ON THE MOON THIS VERY MOMENT?? moon cars! ... friggen full size.. giant moon buggies.. it's retarded
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5146667


idiot.....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32336793
United States
02/19/2013 04:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Moon landing was real, but what they showed is fake. In order to HIDE the evidence of extraterrestrial life.

All the pictures they showed us have all be edited. What more proof do you need. Why no images of unmolested images and videos straight from the satellites. Why do they have to edit it first?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32300607
United States
02/19/2013 05:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Very simple: the reason we don't go now, is because we didn't go then.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


boy the shills really come out of the woodworks on these moon mission hoax threads don't they?? You people can try and baffle us with slide rules and how "powerful" computers were in the sixties..but you can't b.s. your way over common sense. Our rocket tests were just as disatrous as the Russians. They decided to change tactics, it was brilliant, and effective(at the time). Think Argo, intelligence agencies faking a movie, to do a mission..that's real and declassified. This is just the exact opposite, but same concept..faking a mission with film. Common sense, allow me to share some with you: after years of failure, and realizing that the technology just couldn't safely send men to the moon(STILL can't in friggin 2013!) and WAY over budget with dismal results..and running out of time with Russia and the American public, they had to come up with SOMETHING. They were in a VERY bad position, so much money wasted, promises made, a cold war that they cannot afford to lose..what do you do? Hmm..well we cannot PHYSICALLY get there, but we do have ONE claim to fame..Hollywood. We were and ARE extremely good at fantasy, and making it seem as realistic as possible. And that, my friends..is the truth.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32300607


By George, I think he's got it! :) Correct. A sitting American president made a public statement that we'd land men on the moon and return them safely by the end of the decade. Remember that in 1967, the lunar module caught fire on the tarmac and killed 3 astronauts, including the face of NASA astronauts at the time -- Virgil "Gus" Grissom. This was a mere two years before we allegedly landed men on the moon for the first time.

Also, isn't it funny that the Soviets managed to steal our super-secret nuclear technology easily, but we're expected to believe they never got ahold of our "secret" technology to get to the moon that seemed to have stumped them? LOL Come on, folks. Again, it's not so much the science that negates the Apollo lunar landings...It's logic.

There's one thing we had that the Soviets couldn't steal: Hollywood.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


and, I'll go you one better. It was NEVER about going to the moon. It was about building a better ICBM. Under the COVER of going to the moon. I think that early on, they may have actually attempempted to go to the moon, but found out that just wasn't going to happen any time soon, so the mission changed..it's called mission creep. Instead of scrapping the original mission and admitting defeat to the public and to the Russians, they..very cleverly, changed the objective. MUCH easier to use all those resources to perfect ORBITAL rockets, that could..say..drop megatons of nukes on Russia..rather than put men on the moon? But you would need a cover. Two problems rather effectively solved.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32300607
United States
02/19/2013 05:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
and that's the real truth. don't be shy shills..debunk THAT!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32300607
United States
02/19/2013 06:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
it's fine. regroup and come back with your slide rules tomorrow so I can laugh at you. It's 2013 you morans! If we literally had men on the moon in the 60's, we should have had TEAMS on Mars years ago. Riddly me this geniuses..how is it that we had men on the moon in the 60's, yet not ONE single human has left the orbit of the earth SINCE then?? oh sure, the space station. still in orbit. Do the math, smart people. 44 years ago! We supposedly sent men to the moon 44 yrs ago. At that time, we had land lines, black and white T.V.s, computers were only in govt. and they were made of vacuum tubes, the powerful ones were room-sized and a chinese calculator bought at a dollar general store is more powerful than a room-sized "super computer" from that era. You cannot defeat common sense. NASA understood early on, that you can't send humans past the Van Allen belt..not and live very long. IN order to do so..would require extremely heavy shielding..which in turn would require fuel and velocity which were beyond our capabilities at the time. Imagine the tragedy and humiliation if even by some miracle, our calculations of trajectory had been correct, but our HEROES..had died from cosmic radiation on their journey. We couldn't afford that. But we COULD afford a simulation..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7362116
Australia
02/19/2013 06:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
It's sort of funny, that the shills have to keep propping up the tired old story - "we did so go to the Moon. Anyone who thinks we didn't is dumb." Blah blah.

I guess when they made the hoax they really couldn't see how shit would turn out in the future. All their manufactured evidence started to look like the fake it was. That's why they 'lost' the original tapes.

Anyway, they can't admit it, you know. Where's Daze? He should be here by now to tell us black is white.
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
02/19/2013 08:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Why didn't Russia ever send men to the moon, you may ask. Russia lacked one thing. Hollywood.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


No, Russia lacked a working heavy lifting rocket. Their N-1 had a nasty habit of exploding. They did however have an active Moon program until 1974 when they finally gave up. Why work that long if they knew it was impossible?
 Quoting: Weasel_Turbine


The Apollo module had a nasty habit of catching fire, too; even up until 1967, when it killed 3 astronauts, including the man most thought would wind up commanding the first "moon mission", Virgil "Gus" Grissom.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


It caught fire ONCE. Hardly comparable.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
02/19/2013 08:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Think, people...If we successfully landed 6 missions on the moon, why wouldn't we simply use the same equipment and materials and go again, say, next year? After all, if it worked so well in the past, why change it? No need to experiment or test. We already know what works, right? We don't even need to develop a rocket. The Saturn V worked perfectly, right? Why waste time, money, and possibly lives developing, building, and testing new technology.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


Do we have the infrastructure to build a Saturn V anymore? Do we have the custom tooling that was needed to make each part? Is the Saturn V necessarily the best way to get there?
 Quoting: Weasel_Turbine


What's all this talk of infrastructure? As if that blanket word thwarts all the points I've brought up about why the Apollo program and NASA's actions and words regarding it since, are beyond peculiar. There's plenty of infrastructure currently. Do you realize how many people are employed by NASA and their subcontractors? And do you realize how the technology now is light years in advance of the technology from the 1960s? You've got more power in your smart phone than NASA had in its computers in Houston in the 1960s. There is no conceivable reason why it should take longer to get back to the moon now (about twice as long, we're told) than it did in the 1960s.
 Quoting: John Cocktosen


How many megabytes does it take to get to orbit? So what if computing power is greater? Rocket tech is still largely the same and you'll still need a big ass rocket to get to the Moon. And to be able to take more people and stay longer you'll either need bigger rockets or more of them. Better tech doesn't change that.
As for the infrastructure, that means that we don't currently have a place/manufacture/assembly line etc. that builds Saturn V rockets. You want to start building them again you need the custom tooling. You need a place to do it. You need a company to do it. None of that is currently in place. That is the infrastructure and that is also not really affected by computing power.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob