Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,231 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 285,405
Pageviews Today: 363,360Threads Today: 80Posts Today: 1,314
03:11 AM


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: 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
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?
Face Palmer
Educating GLP, One tard at a time

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 05:35 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 08:52 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??
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32300607

Who has wanted to pay for it?


oh sure, the space station. still in orbit.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32300607

Strawman. nobody mentioned the ISS.
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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32300607

Prove it. Show some figures. I'll bet you won't.

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..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32300607


Again, prove it. Show some figures. I'll bet you won't.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34234803
Australia
02/19/2013 09:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners. The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside the earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
02/19/2013 03:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
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..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32300607


Not exactly.

I know this is subtle, but they were more powerful than you think -- purpose-engineered, embedded machines, not general-purpose machines in which much of the power is wasted.

But that isn't even the point. The point is understanding how powerful a computer you need to fly a rocket. The V2 hit London without a computer. The V1 also hit London after navigating the Channel -- on what was practically clockwork. The ICBM first flew on what was essentially the same computer carried by the Apollo LM.

And of course, in all the above cases, the heavy lifting computationally wise was done on the ground. In the case of the LM, the AGC did fly-by-wire tasks but the full calculation of burns was done on Earth; the ACG was linked via telemetry and program updates to Earth.

but you can't b.s. your way over common sense. Our rocket tests were just as disatrous as the Russians.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32300607


Only in an overall sense.

The Titan failures and other spectacular US failures were at the START of the program...long before they moved into the manned phase.

The Soviet failures were towards the END of their lunar program -- including the explosion of an N1 on the pad that was not only the largest non-nuclear explosion ever, but killed the project director.

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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32300607


Perhaps at the time. Why would it still be secret now? Is Operation Crossbow secret now? Blenchly Park? The Manhattan Project? Surely you realize that with the end of the Cold War much of the advantages slip away, to be replaced by a greater and greater threat of exposure.


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
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
02/19/2013 04:06 PM
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..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32300607


By the time of Apollo 11, color broadcast was common in most countries. [link to en.wikipedia.org]

In the US, the last B & W broadcasts were in 1972; by the late 60's, that majority of US sets were color (color sets had been introduced in 1956 but it wasn't until the mid 60's that they made significant inroads).

The first cell phone call was made in 1973 (several years before the final Apollo flight) and the idea itself had first been described in a paper in 1947. There were of course already mobile phones, and had been for at least a decade.

Minicomputers were already in use; by the 60's MIT students and drafting companies and all nature of smaller industries were able to get onboard with such machines as the PDP-8 -- refrigerator-sized, but hardly the room full of clicking relays and whirring tape drives you seem to be imagining.

And, yes, the micro-computer depended on development of the integrated circuit. LSI, at the start. Which was technology developed during, concurrent with, and even essential to Apollo. And it was the kind of integration that went inside the Apollo Guidance Computer that made possible the cruise missile and the Apple 11 (released in the "1977 Trinity" along with the PET 2001 and the TRS-80).

There were hobby computers already being offered to the individual consumer as of 1972. Some of these even looked much like the modern micro; the Xerox Alto of 1973 or the Datapoint 2200 of 1970. This was, yes, the infancy of the personal computer revolution, but it was happening during the time of the Apollo landings.

Oh, and the day of tubes was pretty well past. (And your understanding of space science is pretty much on a par with your grasp of the history of technology -- no point in going over all THAT material again!)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 8434843
United States
02/19/2013 04:10 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.
 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.
 Quoting: Weasel_Turbine


Yep....that's why we dont have telescopes or cameras up there! Those slide rules are missing!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31901825
United States
02/19/2013 04:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
This thread should be permanent pinned forever.
Truthbetold11
User ID: 14786143
United States
02/19/2013 04:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
The lie was intended to decieve the masses to make it look real. 90 percent were convinced. The others are demonized. I for one believed my whole life. Till i did some fact checking and added up the math and clue finding. And i found at least 10 or more bold face lies. But when i talk to people the laugh at me. Thats how much theblie has been accepted as truth
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
02/19/2013 08:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
The lie was intended to decieve the masses to make it look real. 90 percent were convinced. The others are demonized. I for one believed my whole life. Till i did some fact checking and added up the math and clue finding. And i found at least 10 or more bold face lies. But when i talk to people the laugh at me. Thats how much theblie has been accepted as truth
 Quoting: Truthbetold11 14786143


Show these supposed lies then. I have yet to see a hoax claim that actually stands up under scrutiny. Most are based on ignorance of orbital mechanics, thermodynamics, physics, astronomy, photography, etc. and often a combination of two or more of those.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9107938
United States
02/19/2013 08:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Of course it was faked/staged. The government used tax payers dollars to build the entire program and walked away with about 9 billion dollars profit off the deal - a shit load of money back then.
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
02/19/2013 11:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: for the moon hoaxers.. Computers of NASA - 1960s
Of course it was faked/staged. The government used tax payers dollars to build the entire program and walked away with about 9 billion dollars profit off the deal - a shit load of money back then.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9107938


The money provably went to multiple subcontractors to build equipment that was capable of getting to the Moon and back. Prove there was 9 billion left for any profit. I'll bet you can't.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

News