The Moon Mission
Discussion
Jim H said:
Right.
I’m talking about the sixties.
No Carbon Fibre. No CFD. Little knowledge about aerodynamics. No advanced Electrical Systems (I’m talking about the phone)
And this massive firework just set off and travelled all those miles. What is it nearly 300 K?
Stopped right on point.Ejected a capsule. Lowered one man down onto a place that was little understood. Perfectly took off again.
Used gravity to get back?
I’m going to look this up.
I’m sure Werner Von Braun said that the fuel to get there would be impossible
Think again.
The sixties remember.
Aerodynamics was well understood, but meaningless in space. Remember this was the concorde era when we could have civilian passengers flying at mach 2.I’m talking about the sixties.
No Carbon Fibre. No CFD. Little knowledge about aerodynamics. No advanced Electrical Systems (I’m talking about the phone)
And this massive firework just set off and travelled all those miles. What is it nearly 300 K?
Stopped right on point.Ejected a capsule. Lowered one man down onto a place that was little understood. Perfectly took off again.
Used gravity to get back?
I’m going to look this up.
I’m sure Werner Von Braun said that the fuel to get there would be impossible
Think again.
The sixties remember.
Advanced electronics were certainly about. In the 1980'a I was a Weapons Engineer. My main specialisation was operating and maintaining a weapons system that was completely autonomous. It tracked targets, did threat assessment and made the decision to fire. It was developed in the late 60's and early 70's and I can assure you it was crammed full of advanced electronics. It even had a computer.
My first ship was 20 years old when I joined it, and it even that had a computer (Ferranti FM1600)
Why do you keep bringing up phones? They have nothing to do with space travel.
Edited by 98elise on Saturday 1st June 17:26
Jim H said:
I’ve been having a right giggle to myself about this today.
I think it was Chevron picked up on.
It was a late night thought. Obviously wine laden.
But, it did kick off a bit of a s
t show! It kept us all entertained
And some very interesting points of view.
My true intention
You were still posting bI think it was Chevron picked up on.
It was a late night thought. Obviously wine laden.
But, it did kick off a bit of a s
t show! It kept us all entertained And some very interesting points of view.
My true intention
ks this afternoon on it.MikeM6 said:
OddCat said:
...AI will further expose lies because it uses logic and isn't so susceptible to influence...
Sadly this is so wrong in every conceivable way. AI is incredibly susceptible to influence, that is the huge risk with it down the line.When ChatGPT was first released I asked it to write me an 100 word article on a particular car. It's was a decent article, except it was very very wrong. It had somehow come to the conclusion the car was electric. Its not.
Jim H said:
I’ve been having a right giggle to myself about this today.
I think it was Chevron picked up on.
It was a late night thought. Obviously wine laden.
But, it did kick off a bit of a st show! It kept us all entertained
And some very interesting points of view.
My true intention
I look forward to your next post that the pyramids couldn’t have been built without modern technology, and therefore must have been built by ancient aliens. I think it was Chevron picked up on.
It was a late night thought. Obviously wine laden.
But, it did kick off a bit of a s
t show! It kept us all entertained And some very interesting points of view.
My true intention
Ken_Code said:
Jim H said:
I’ve been having a right giggle to myself about this today.
I think it was Chevron picked up on.
It was a late night thought. Obviously wine laden.
But, it did kick off a bit of a st show! It kept us all entertained
And some very interesting points of view.
My true intention
You were still posting bI think it was Chevron picked up on.
It was a late night thought. Obviously wine laden.
But, it did kick off a bit of a s
t show! It kept us all entertained And some very interesting points of view.
My true intention
ks this afternoon on it.Ken_Code said:
Fusion777 said:
Inertial guidance is also worth reading about- doesn't need GPS.
I find it fascinating how it’s used in submarines. The precision needed for any accuracy over days or weeks is amazing.Gary C said:
You mean the intelligent, educated and well read people ?
That post of his sums up a lot of what drives conspiracy theorists. They are desperate to get one over on the sort of people who did well at school, who actually studied, and went on to gain expertise.It’s the thought of showing them all that that slow kid at school was really the intelligent one that drives much of it.
Arrivalist said:
Ken_Code said:
Jim H said:
I’ve been having a right giggle to myself about this today.
I think it was Chevron picked up on.
It was a late night thought. Obviously wine laden.
But, it did kick off a bit of a st show! It kept us all entertained
And some very interesting points of view.
My true intention
You were still posting bI think it was Chevron picked up on.
It was a late night thought. Obviously wine laden.
But, it did kick off a bit of a s
t show! It kept us all entertained And some very interesting points of view.
My true intention
ks this afternoon on it.
Ken_Code said:
That post of his sums up a lot of what drives conspiracy theorists. They are desperate to get one over on the sort of people who did well at school, who actually studied, and went on to gain expertise.
It’s the thought of showing them all that that slow kid at school was really the intelligent one that drives much of it.
As opposed to people who have been indoctrinated at birth about certain realities, how do you think they fit in your paradigm? The moon landings were 50 years ago, pretty sure you don’t need conspiracy theorists to question that, considering so much has happened since. If you still believe what happens in 1969 was true, surely you’re a bit unhingihed?It’s the thought of showing them all that that slow kid at school was really the intelligent one that drives much of it.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I've always had my doubts. Not so much about the science of whether it is/was actually possible. More because it was so politically convenient, and it would be far easier, cheaper and safer to fake it than to actually do it.
It was extremely politically INCONVENIENT as even by 1966 the US realised it was costing a huge amount of money and even by then the desire to beat the Soviets in space was far less pressing than it had been in 1961.And faking any of what was done on these missions at that time would not only have been even more expensive, it would not have been possible.
Anybody who really thinks the Apollo programme was faked is not only an idiot, they are a deluded idiot who doesn’t realise how much of an idiot they really are.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff