Moon Landings
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: astra 1.9ctdi with dtuk green box. 195/300
Posts: 2,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1962 JFK said "America will put a man on the moon before the end of the decade" They said they did (I personally have never subscribed to that statement, along with thousands of americans.) They did all this in just eight years using what is today 40 year old technology, i.e. There is 10 times more processing power in an average home pc of today than those they used to "put a man on the moon". So how come with all of today's super computers, space know how, and the like, they can't manage to do it again for another 15 years??? Sounds very fishy to me .
dave
dave
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Processing power is pretty irrelevant. With a bit of manual correction, you only need decent instruments and a pretty basic navigational computer - as you suggest any normal PC is more than good enough with the right software. The more difficult things are relaibly producing the motive power to get you up there and back, the life support for long periods (they aren't talking about going and coming straight back now, as I understand it) etc.
Again, all IMHO
Again, all IMHO
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: astra 1.9ctdi with dtuk green box. 195/300
Posts: 2,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair comment! but, they can launch a shuttle more or less on demand it's only 3 days!! to the moon (not rocket science is it)
dave. My point is, if they could do it(allegedley!) 40 years ago, why not now??
dave
dave. My point is, if they could do it(allegedley!) 40 years ago, why not now??
dave
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a house
Posts: 5,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how would a little capsule powered by kerosene made it to the moon and protected the astronout from radiation? If the shuttle couldnt do it because of this reason then..
#9
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LIVERPOOL THE CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
Posts: 8,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They did go, reason being my local Omega dealer told me so.
He said here you go, you guillable ****, this is as exact replica of the watch which was worn on the moon.
'Really', I said.
'Ill have it'.
He said here you go, you guillable ****, this is as exact replica of the watch which was worn on the moon.
'Really', I said.
'Ill have it'.
#10
Scooby Regular
They have (allegedly) been to the Moon, there isnt anything there, why waste money going back
on another note, would you really trust Windows Software to get you to the moon and back
on another note, would you really trust Windows Software to get you to the moon and back
#12
I believe they went to the moon. While the physics of a lot of the "they didn't go" claims are flawed what really convinces me is that the Russians never disputed that they got there. Just think about the politics at that time and you would realise that if the Russians had the least doubt they would have made a big thing from it. They also left a mirror on the moon that anyone with a suitable laser and detector can reflect light from, while that doesn't prove that there was a man there it does prove that they landed and deployed a mirror in a controlled manner.
As someone pointed out the basic maths of getting to the moon are pretty simple and don't require much in the way of processing power. The propulsion and life support systems are a different matter.
There is some discussion in the scientific journals that the current moon missions are a PR cover up for the withdrawal of the shuttle missions. They are withdrawing the shuttle to fund the future moon missions, they claim, but some people are saying that they need a nice way to cancel the shuttle without losing face. So, what looks like a massive expansion of the US space program might actually be a tactical retreat.
As someone pointed out the basic maths of getting to the moon are pretty simple and don't require much in the way of processing power. The propulsion and life support systems are a different matter.
There is some discussion in the scientific journals that the current moon missions are a PR cover up for the withdrawal of the shuttle missions. They are withdrawing the shuttle to fund the future moon missions, they claim, but some people are saying that they need a nice way to cancel the shuttle without losing face. So, what looks like a massive expansion of the US space program might actually be a tactical retreat.
#13
Scooby Regular
on another note, would you really trust Windows Software to get you to the moon and back
Dan
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They haven't been to the moon, come on, they said "Here are some moon rocks", but they weren't made from green cheese.
Well, you can bash the Americans all you like. I for one am happy that at least the willing is there. Humans back to doing what they do best: Exploring.
Cheers
Ian
Well, you can bash the Americans all you like. I for one am happy that at least the willing is there. Humans back to doing what they do best: Exploring.
Cheers
Ian
#16
I didn't get the watch - But my Aunty did get me the pen
The billion dollar pen that writes upside down, under water, over oil etc. etc.
The story goes that the russians took a pencil LOL
It is worth all this investment though... Just think how we'd manage without teflon saucepans
Mick
The billion dollar pen that writes upside down, under water, over oil etc. etc.
The story goes that the russians took a pencil LOL
It is worth all this investment though... Just think how we'd manage without teflon saucepans
Mick
#19
I you have ever stood in the VAB and seen a complete rocket/capsule assembly being worked on prior to a moonshot, and been up to the top of the VAB to see it all from the other aspect, Then you cannot help but realise the incredible complication of getting it all to work at all. Standing underneath it and realising that one rocket motor exhaust is the size of a small room further underlines it all.
You cannot help admiring the capabilities of the entire NASA operation with the space successes that they have achieved.
Les
You cannot help admiring the capabilities of the entire NASA operation with the space successes that they have achieved.
Les
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have (allegedly) been to the Moon, there isnt anything there, why waste money going back
#21
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i.e. There is 10 times more processing power in an average home pc of today than those they used to "put a man on the moon".
It's just (albeit very complex) physics.
Geezer
#22
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Your home is worthless.You can't afford to run your car.Your job is on the line.Schadenfreude rules.
Posts: 4,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe that the Americans landed men on the moon either. Then again I don't believe that the earth is round either- whenever you see a picture taken from "space" it always looks like a flat disc.
#23
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Nobbering about...
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic but sort of connected is the news that all space shuttle missions to repair and service the Hubble Telescope are to be scrapped which could put the telescope out of use in four years
So no more beautiful pics like this one, at least not from Hubble anyway:
The Eagle Nebula
[Edited by scoobychick - 1/19/2004 1:42:17 PM]
So no more beautiful pics like this one, at least not from Hubble anyway:
The Eagle Nebula
[Edited by scoobychick - 1/19/2004 1:42:17 PM]
#24
somone link to the thread last year when all this pathetic feeble minded twaddle about oooooh its a conspiracy we never went to the moon and shadows on the photos prove it crap,
was comprehensively blown away.
Never mind i'll go look myself.
was comprehensively blown away.
Never mind i'll go look myself.
#25
#26
There are perfectly good scientific reasons to explain away each bit of "conspiracy" evidence....
I'm amazed that people disputed it in the first place.... bunch of time wasters.
I'm amazed that people disputed it in the first place.... bunch of time wasters.
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt, "feeble-minded" it might have seemed, but *nobody*, repeat *nobody*, repeat again *nobody* can adequately explain how Apollo was sufficiently shielded against the solar radiation for the duration of the Apollo trips - the single biggest concern of NASA today for a manned Moon base.
You might *think* they can, because you don't want to believe what you perceive as conspiracy nonsense, which is another matter entirely. But you're merely taking somebody else's word for it if you think this aspect has a fully satisfactory answer. Just so's you know....
You might *think* they can, because you don't want to believe what you perceive as conspiracy nonsense, which is another matter entirely. But you're merely taking somebody else's word for it if you think this aspect has a fully satisfactory answer. Just so's you know....
#28
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: www.scoobyworld.co.uk
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apart from the reportedly v.poor control of the lunar lander during testing, the strange shadows of the astronauts, exactly identical landscapes (in several shots), reflections on the helmets etc....IMHO the #1 reason that the Moon Landings never took place = the cotton suits and construction of Apollo would not have protected the astronauts in anyway from the lethal effects of the Van Allen Radiation Belt, hence they all would have died years ago (which they havent).
Neil
Neil
#29
Matt, "feeble-minded" it might have seemed, but *nobody*, repeat *nobody*, repeat again *nobody* can adequately explain how Apollo was sufficiently shielded against the solar radiation for the duration of the Apollo trips
the single biggest concern of NASA today for a manned Moon base.
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um, I think the landscapes all looked similar (i.e. flat) because they were all picked to ensure there wasn't anything big enough to damage the lunar module on landing (big rocks, big craters, big hills). The ground also had to be flat to enable the upper stage to be launched successfully - if it was at anything of an angle to the horizontal (the maximum angle could have been as small as 15 degrees), then the guys wouldn't have been coming home.