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

And? What are you trying to say here?

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.

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.

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.

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.

we didn't walk around and drive moon buggies on the moon, get over it.

The last time a human being ALLEGEDLY went beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) was 1972 (the last Apollo mission -- 17); 41 years ago. Add to this that the Russians NEVER went. It was done, allegedly, with 1960s technology, yet today with 2010s technology, we don't send man beyond Low Earth Orbit, nor have we for over four decades. Hmmm....something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

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.

Last Edited by John Cocktosen on 02/18/2013 06:24 AM

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!

Neil Armstrong quote from 1994 -- "There are breakthroughs available for those who can remove one of Truth's protective layers."

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...

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?

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

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.

The mistake a lot of people make is not understanding that the majority of the argument for why we didn't land men on the moon 6 times successfully with Apollo between 1969-72, isn't one of science, but of logic.

Why didn't Russia ever send men to the moon, you may ask. Russia lacked one thing. Hollywood.

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

Well, the Saturn V basically WAS German designed -- Werner Von Braun and his crew.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

The Moon is made of cheese.Odins(Norse god)ravens Hugin and Munin flies up there once a month an it it.

all that to fake something?
that's what I was trying to say.

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.

No.


Do you think if you took the time to learn something about the actual Apollo Program, you might find it more plausible?

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...

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.

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.