BF2S Forums We did NOT go to the moon, damnit!!

Funky_Finny wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Did NASA manage to get their hands on vegas movie maker and photoshop?

If they didn't have simple tools like Photoshop or Vegas (or such like) then how the FUCK did they make a several hundred tonne object fly out of the gravitational pull of the earth and land with exellent precision on the surface of the moon? All with, as my brother, not friend Jay said, the technology of a calculator or washing machine?

GG.

Funky_Finny wrote:

If they didn't have simple tools like Photoshop or Vegas (or such like) then how the FUCK did they make a several hundred tonne object fly out of the gravitational pull of the earth and land with exellent precision on the surface of the moon? All with, as my brother, not friend Jay said, the technology of a calculator or washing machine?

GG.

Could 60s/70s Technology have made it to the moon?  Did they have good enough computers and stuff?

Oh, the arrogance of the 21st century! It's true that computing technology of the time was really primitive compared to that of today, but a couple of things have to be considered.

    * NASA was at the cutting edge of technology, and if they didn't have it they could buy it. What they had available to them was well in advance of anything else around at the time.
    * It doesn't take much computational power to plot a course to the moon. Ok, maybe you or we couldn't do it, but we're talking Newtonian physics here that can be done on the back of an envelope by any physicists worth their salt.

One of the most commonly quoted 'facts' quoted about 60s technology is that "the modern washing machine has more computational power than the first lander."   This is a questionable fact, but it hardly matters.  It's amazing what you can achieve with primitive computers if you're not worried about fancy user interfaces.    Also, most of what had to be computed in the Apollo missions could be done on Earth and radioed up.   Everything didn't have to be carried on board.

But think of all the modern computing power you need for a flight simulator, and that's not even the real thing!

All the computing power you need in flight simulation programmes you can now buy for your computer is needed to generate the realistic surroundings.  Very little is needed for the actual flying controls.   The Apollo missions didn't need to generate pretty surroundings on a screen, they had the real thing!

Gawwad wrote:

Im_Dooomed wrote:

Funky_Finny wrote:

If they didn't have simple tools like Photoshop or Vegas (or such like) then how the FUCK did they make a several hundred tonne object fly out of the gravitational pull of the earth and land with exellent precision on the surface of the moon? All with, as my brother, not friend Jay said, the technology of a calculator or washing machine?

GG.

Rockets idiot. Rockets. They propel out of the earths atmosphere. DO YOU REALLY THINK that they only had the technology of a CALCULATOR in the APOLLO MISSIONS? /FACEPALM

Your idiocy I hate to say, is starting to piss me off. And I have no shred of respect for you at all. Sorry. I won't even bother to write up my own response in reply to your complaint their technology wasn't sophisticated enough. I'll just quote this again:

Could 60s/70s Technology have made it to the moon?  Did they have good enough computers and stuff?

Oh, the arrogance of the 21st century! It's true that computing technology of the time was really primitive compared to that of today, but a couple of things have to be considered.

    * NASA was at the cutting edge of technology, and if they didn't have it they could buy it. What they had available to them was well in advance of anything else around at the time.
    * It doesn't take much computational power to plot a course to the moon. Ok, maybe you or we couldn't do it, but we're talking Newtonian physics here that can be done on the back of an envelope by any physicists worth their salt.

One of the most commonly quoted 'facts' quoted about 60s technology is that "the modern washing machine has more computational power than the first lander."   This is a questionable fact, but it hardly matters.  It's amazing what you can achieve with primitive computers if you're not worried about fancy user interfaces.    Also, most of what had to be computed in the Apollo missions could be done on Earth and radioed up.   Everything didn't have to be carried on board.

But think of all the modern computing power you need for a flight simulator, and that's not even the real thing!

All the computing power you need in flight simulation programmes you can now buy for your computer is needed to generate the realistic surroundings.  Very little is needed for the actual flying controls.   The Apollo missions didn't need to generate pretty surroundings on a screen, they had the real thing!

Did you read it? Did you read it again? Did you think about it? God...This thread is sucking away my own sanity.

Maybe if I'll quote it he'll consider reading.
You never know.

Freke1 wrote:

There are still some questions that haven't been answered:

1. Why is there no rocket noise when the astronauts speak? The rocket produce 150dB roar.
2. How could they survive the radiation? (they needed a thick lead shield, I believe).

Has anyone any answers to these questions?

Brizzzer wrote:

Freke1 wrote:

There are still some questions that haven't been answered:

1. Why is there no rocket noise when the astronauts speak? The rocket produce 150dB roar.
2. How could they survive the radiation? (they needed a thick lead shield, I believe).

Has anyone any answers to these questions?

While I can't answer #1 I think I know the answer to #2.  Those suits they were DO provide protection from radiation.  But they get a much larger amount than a normal person would get here on earth.  Its something like 10,000 xrays for every space walk they take.  Over a short period of time it won't hurt them, its if they stayed out there for more than 2-3 days it would start to build up.  Look up space walking today very simlar suits as far as protection goes.

SenorToenails wrote:

Freke1 wrote:

There are still some questions that haven't been answered:

1. Why is there no rocket noise when the astronauts speak? The rocket produce 150dB roar.
2. How could they survive the radiation? (they needed a thick lead shield, I believe).

Has anyone any answers to these questions?

1.  Sound is a longitudinal wave, which requires a medium to propagate in.  In vacuum, there is no atmosphere, thus no medium for them to propagate in, so soundwaves cannot exist.  Therefore, no sound.

2.  Radiation:  A good portion of the suns radiation could be shielded passably by the space suit.  They will get a larger dose of radiation than people on Earth (obviously).  Much of the radiation would also be shielded by the space craft hull when they were in that.

Gawwad wrote:

I'm not sure but I remember that they didn't quite understand what to expect on the trip.
They didn't for example have sufficient protection against solar winds but luckily they didn't encounter them either.
Again, I'm not sure if I remember right