Moon Landing

[ChicagoBlue]

Given an equivalent budget I could land my Gran on the moon. There is absolutely nothing impressive about the moon landings as money was no object. Brute force isn't impressive, it's impressive if you achieve it with constraints in place.

The thing you are typing on had more computing power than Apollo 11. Which part of "fucking miraculous" are you struggling with?

 

[pfazz]

Given an equivalent budget I could land my Gran on the moon. There is absolutely nothing impressive about the moon landings as money was no object. Brute force isn't impressive, it's impressive if you achieve it with constraints in place.

An amazing amount of utter bollocks in such a short paragraph. Very impressive.

 

[happy daze]

Given an equivalent budget I could land my Gran on the moon. There is absolutely nothing impressive about the moon landings as money was no object. Brute force isn't impressive, it's impressive if you achieve it with constraints in place.

You could give me all the money that has ever existed in the world. Times it by a million. And I still wouldn't be able to change the fuse in a plug. Never mind build some sort of rocket thing, that could make it to the moon.

You think your average multi millionaire changes a fuse? no he gets a man in to do it for him

 

[The Silver Surfer]

Given an equivalent budget I could land my Gran on the moon. There is absolutely nothing impressive about the moon landings as money was no object. Brute force isn't impressive, it's impressive if you achieve it with constraints in place.

Better not support man city then they're proper classless cnuts in your book!

But then you could always argue with all the money in the world need a dedicated backroom team to manage the project and achieve results, nevermind having the personal and professional desire to achieve something not only for yourself but a large of followers.
But then they're only putting a man on the Moon and not trying to win football trophies.

 

[SWP's back]

Given an equivalent budget I could land my Gran on the moon. There is absolutely nothing impressive about the moon landings as money was no object. Brute force isn't impressive, it's impressive if you achieve it with constraints in place.

twaddle.

My phone has 1,000,000 x the processing power of the computers they used. There's a constraint.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Wow just wow Irwell if I gave you 10 billion quid and 4 lifetimes I don't think you could achieve what NASA did back then with a piece of equipment that my phone is more powerful than now. The calculator I had at school had more computing power than Apollo 11. That kind of engineering would seem ridiculous to people given the amount of knowledge we have now

 

[samharris]

Given an equivalent budget I could land my Gran on the moon. There is absolutely nothing impressive about the moon landings as money was no object. Brute force isn't impressive, it's impressive if you achieve it with constraints in place.

twaddle.

My phone has 1,000,000 x the processing power of the computers they used. There's a constraint.

Can we go to the moon on your phone then?? ;)

 

[Skashion]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE[/youtube]

It's stuff like this is what gets me annoyed when people talk about proving the manned Moon landings. Retroreflectors aren't proof of manned Moon landings. If they were, the Soviets landed men on the Moon. It's laziness and ignorance to use that as proof, at least in isolation - such as lack of evidence for a robotic alternative like the Soviets used to get their retroreflectors on the Moon.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Given an equivalent budget I could land my Gran on the moon. There is absolutely nothing impressive about the moon landings as money was no object. Brute force isn't impressive, it's impressive if you achieve it with constraints in place.

twaddle.

My phone has 1,000,000 x the processing power of the computers they used. There's a constraint.

Can we go to the moon on your phone then?? ;)

I don't think his phone has 10 million pounds of thrust

 

[SWP's back]

Given an equivalent budget I could land my Gran on the moon. There is absolutely nothing impressive about the moon landings as money was no object. Brute force isn't impressive, it's impressive if you achieve it with constraints in place.

twaddle.

My phone has 1,000,000 x the processing power of the computers they used. There's a constraint.

Can we go to the moon on your phone then?? ;)

If you have a spare Saturn 5 hanging about then probably.

 

[Skashion]

twaddle.

My phone has 1,000,000 x the processing power of the computers they used. There's a constraint.

Can we go to the moon on your phone then?? ;)

If you have a spare Saturn 5 hanging about then probably.

You don't need a Saturn 5 to get a phone to the Moon. A spare Molniya-M or Proton rocket will do.

 

[SWP's back]

Can we go to the moon on your phone then?? ;)

If you have a spare Saturn 5 hanging about then probably.

You don't need a Saturn 5 to get a phone to the Moon. A spare Molniya-M or Proton rocket will do.

I'm pretty sure Sam was wanting both he and I to go together.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Can we go to the moon on your phone then?? ;)

If you have a spare Saturn 5 hanging about then probably.

You don't need a Saturn 5 to get a phone to the Moon. A spare Molniya-M or Proton rocket will do.

You had to get the Soviets involved didn't you ;)

 

[Skashion]

I'm pretty sure Sam was wanting both he and I to go together.

No worries mate, you can still go, you just won't be coming back. ;-) The Saturn V wasn't created to take men to the Moon, it was created to bring them back.<br /><br />-- Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:36 am --<br /><br />

You had to get the Soviets involved didn't you ;)

Saturn V would be overkill. Those things were horrendously expensive. That's why they don't exist anymore.

 

[samharris]

If you have a spare Saturn 5 hanging about then probably.

You don't need a Saturn 5 to get a phone to the Moon. A spare Molniya-M or Proton rocket will do.

I'm pretty sure Sam was wanting both he and I to go together.

That would be absolutetly marvelous.. :)

-- Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:41 am --

I'm pretty sure Sam was wanting both he and I to go together.

No worries mate, you can still go, you just won't be coming back. ;-) The Saturn V wasn't created to take men to the Moon, it was created to bring them back.

-- Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:36 am --

You had to get the Soviets involved didn't you ;)

Saturn V would be overkill. Those things were horrendously expensive. That's why they don't exist anymore.

Eh?? but if it has to go there to bring em back it may as well take them..

Awaits super whoosh!!

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Same old shit disputing the moon landings. So the Yanks faked a moon landing on six different occasions did they?

 

[Skashion]

Eh?? but if it has to go there to bring em back it may as well take them..

The Saturn V was necessary because you needed to be able to launch a large payload capable of propelling itself off the Moon's surface if you wanted to bring men back. This is what the Americans could do that the Soviets couldn't. The Americans originally tried the Soviet approach of having hundreds of small engines but they found it didn't work. So, the Americans then went for huge engines which did work. Only those engines were capable of taking a Lunar Lander to the Moon. The Soviets could have landed men on the Moon. They had rockets powerful enough to do that. That's how they got man-made equipment onto the Moon that weighed as much as a couple of cars. They could get several tons to the Moon but they couldn't get 47 tons, like the Americans did, so they couldn't get men back off the Moon.

 

[ForzaMancini]

Given your sweeping statement, I can only assume you were not even born when the Nasa space programme had a moon landing as it's primary objective.

Throughout the 60's, every launch was a step into the unknown. Each and every mission, be they Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo, pushed the known limits of space travel to the edge of what was possible, and some of them suffered problems, especially the practice docking between the two Gemini capsules.

I suggest you at least read something of the trials and tribulations of Nasa's efforts in those days.

To blithely state there was nothing impressive about the moon landings is ignorance of the highest order.

I lived through those days, and I am full of admiration for all those astronauts that put their lives on the line so man could walk on the moon.

It was an incredible achievement, and I'm pleased I watched it happen.

Obviously a number of people on here, yourself included, don't have the mental aptitude to comprehend the difference between 'sending my gran to the moon', 'sending my gran to the moon with no assistance' and 'sending my gran to the moon at the first attempt with no assistance'. Of course I would fail the first few times but the physics behind it is fairly simple, it is just the technology that was lacking. A few attempts, given their budget, and I would be at the point of risking my gran.

It wasn't a case of man overcoming nature against the odds, it was simply a case of applying the resources necessary to get the job done before the Russians. No major skill was involved at all and, had the Americans been unsuccessful, the Russians would just as easily have managed it. Lives lost? Of course there were, but those lives were considered expendable.

As I said previously, it was brute force rather than skill. Keep throwing peanuts at a concrete wall and you'll break through eventually.

No you won't.

 

[m7mcfc]

Given your sweeping statement, I can only assume you were not even born when the Nasa space programme had a moon landing as it's primary objective.

Throughout the 60's, every launch was a step into the unknown. Each and every mission, be they Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo, pushed the known limits of space travel to the edge of what was possible, and some of them suffered problems, especially the practice docking between the two Gemini capsules.

I suggest you at least read something of the trials and tribulations of Nasa's efforts in those days.

To blithely state there was nothing impressive about the moon landings is ignorance of the highest order.

I lived through those days, and I am full of admiration for all those astronauts that put their lives on the line so man could walk on the moon.

It was an incredible achievement, and I'm pleased I watched it happen.

Obviously a number of people on here, yourself included, don't have the mental aptitude to comprehend the difference between 'sending my gran to the moon', 'sending my gran to the moon with no assistance' and 'sending my gran to the moon at the first attempt with no assistance'. Of course I would fail the first few times but the physics behind it is fairly simple, it is just the technology that was lacking. A few attempts, given their budget, and I would be at the point of risking my gran.

It wasn't a case of man overcoming nature against the odds, it was simply a case of applying the resources necessary to get the job done before the Russians. No major skill was involved at all and, had the Americans been unsuccessful, the Russians would just as easily have managed it. Lives lost? Of course there were, but those lives were considered expendable.

As I said previously, it was brute force rather than skill. Keep throwing peanuts at a concrete wall and you'll break through eventually.

No you won't.

correctomundo.

 

[mcmanus]

Wow just wow Irwell if I gave you 10 billion quid and 4 lifetimes I don't think you could achieve what NASA did back then with a piece of equipment that my phone is more powerful than now. The calculator I had at school had more computing power than Apollo 11. That kind of engineering would seem ridiculous to people given the amount of knowledge we have now

I've heard the calculator fact many times that's why I don't believe the moon landings.