More irritating Moon landing info for the weak

a reply to: oldcarpy

Yeh well I think you need more substance to your claim than a simple rebuttal.

363 foot tall 2.8 million kilogram Moon rocket, not so easy.

So you suggest size matters? I dont think you understand modelling or engineering. Are you trying to suggest they lost the blueprints as well.

They even recycled parts for the Shuttle program.

en.wikipedia.org...

Out of 270 SRBs launched over the Shuttle program, all but four were recovered – those from STS-4 (due to a parachute malfunction) and STS-51-L (Challenger disaster).[3] Over 5,000 parts were refurbished for reuse after each flight. The final set of SRBs that launched STS-135 included parts that flew on 59 previous missions, including STS-1.[4

And a smartphone today is more powerful than the computers that landed man on the moon.


www.popularmechanics.com...

While an iPhone does have more computing power than all of NASA had during the Apollo days, the AGC, designed at the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, had one crucial advantage: it was crash-proof. Operating systems that we're familiar with today, like Apple iOS and Android, control the computer and dole out energy and attention to various programs. In the AGC, the programs controlled the computer in a hierarchical structure, and a program's specific importance would dictate how much attention it got. In the case of an emergency, this would allow for a quicker focus on crucial systems. So while the iPhone beats the AGC in sheer power several thousand times over, there's still that chance of a freeze. If you had to go back to the Moon with an Apollo craft, you probably could transfer the necessary programs onto an app. After all, the AGC's code is now up on GitHub. But given the chance of a freeze, be it from an unexpected update or random chance, it might be safer to dust off the gold suitcase that got NASA there in the first place.

But then again lets just trust NASA

Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
www.reuters.com...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Yeah like you think they start from scratch - lazy thinking


GM plans 10 weeks of downtime this year for plant retooling
www.autonews.com...

NEW YORK -- General Motors plans to idle multiple North American plants for a total of 10 weeks later this year to retool for upcoming models, including redesigned pickups. The scheduled downtime is one reason GM has allowed inventory to reach the highest level in nine years.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I think you're the one guilty of lazy thinking, not to mention missing the point.

How many different manufacturers were involved in making the Saturn V, including the command and service module and lunar module? Are they involved in manufacturing any part of the Saturn V now? Do they have the equipment needed to build those parts to hand?

Your point about the computing power is just as lazy. If you don't think the computers involved were capable of the navigational tasks they were used for then you need to show people in what respect they were inadequate.

Likewise your point about losing the back up telemetry tapes from 1 mission. All the useful data from those tapes were already saved elsewhere.

This is an eyeopener. Maybe this was what Starfish Prime was all about. To blow a hole through. Maybe they succeeded and now the International Space Station guards the gateway.

The latest hoax theory I heard about was that they can't go any higher because of the glass. The glass in the capsules,modules, and helmets can't protect astronauts adequately. Also the glass optics camera lenses couldn't protect the film from overexposure to radiation. Otherwise all they would need to do is build everything out of glass.

a reply to: TamtammyMacx

Using that theory, space is a giant hoax then. Because every probe that sent signals back to earth used glass on the lenses of the cameras, and they worked just fine. Some of them far beyond their designed life too.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think they were just talking about the Hassleblad or film cameras. Not the cameras that send electronic video signals.

a reply to: TamtammyMacx

Glass works just fine for short term exposures, and will protect the film to a degree just fine. The early spy satellites used film canisters that were dropped down and recovered under parachute. They would catch them in flight with either helicopters or C-130s, and the pictures were amazing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought we were talking about radiation being less beneath the van allen belts rather than farther out in space. Weren't most spy satellites beneath the Van Allens. I would guess that the spy satellites were low beneath the extensive radiation and the protection of the Van Allen belts, Llke the ISS and space shuttle , sky lab and other human environments.

a reply to: TamtammyMacx

It depends on the mission. There were some that went, at least briefly, into the lower portions of the belts. The Van Allen Belts start at 500km. There were a few KH series satellites that used film canisters, as late as 1982 that crossed that line and were in the Belts.

originally posted by: TamtammyMacx
a reply to: Zaphod58

I think they were just talking about the Hassleblad or film cameras. Not the cameras that send electronic video signals.

Same argument applies - the 5 Lunar Orbiter probes used film cameras, as did the Soviet Zond missions with the images scanned and sent back to Earth by FM signal.