• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you believe about Apollo moon landing in 1969 ?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Aheheheh.... God bless the Fox network.

You know, they had computers to help automate the landing process in the LEM.
Click to expand...
Yes they did. I know one of the engineers who wrote the code. From when announced to when they had to have the hardware for the code was a very short time relatively. The design criteria was that they computers had to fit in a certain size box, now go build it.

When Neil jogged the LEM on landing, the computers were at 100% CPU. If any one of the three systems (main and TWO backups) crashed (remember, this is real computing, not VM with CPU crash protection), the code was designed to automatically abort the landing (abort to orbit, no second try). Pedro, the engineering I mentioned, was one of those guys who was turning blue just before NA said, "... the Eagle has landed."

My step-father was a tech for Gemini and early Apollo. He installed the hardware in the capsule and Velcro. It is believed that Velcro may have created the static spark in the 100% O2 atmosphere that caused the Apollo 1 fire.

 
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Aheheheh.... God bless the Fox network.

You know, they had computers to help automate the landing process in the LEM.
Click to expand...
Yes they did. I know one of the engineers who wrote the code. From when announced to when they had to have the hardware for the code was a very short time relatively. The design criteria was that they computers had to fit in a certain size box, now go build it.

When Neil jogged the LEM on landing, the computers were at 100% CPU. If any one of the three systems (main and TWO backups) crashed (remember, this is real computing, not VM with CPU crash protection), the code was designed to automatically abort the landing (abort to orbit, no second try). Pedro, the engineering I mentioned, was one of those guys who was turning blue just before NA said, "... the Eagle has landed."

My step-father was a tech for Gemini and early Apollo. He installed the hardware in the capsule and Velcro. It is believed that Velcro may have created the static spark in the 100% O2 atmosphere that caused the Apollo 1 fire.
Click to expand...

I remember hearing that the reason why the computer was maxing out was because they had forgotten to turn off a sensor, eating up needed cycles
 
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Aheheheh.... God bless the Fox network.

You know, they had computers to help automate the landing process in the LEM.
Click to expand...
Yes they did. I know one of the engineers who wrote the code. From when announced to when they had to have the hardware for the code was a very short time relatively. The design criteria was that they computers had to fit in a certain size box, now go build it.

When Neil jogged the LEM on landing, the computers were at 100% CPU. If any one of the three systems (main and TWO backups) crashed (remember, this is real computing, not VM with CPU crash protection), the code was designed to automatically abort the landing (abort to orbit, no second try). Pedro, the engineering I mentioned, was one of those guys who was turning blue just before NA said, "... the Eagle has landed."

My step-father was a tech for Gemini and early Apollo. He installed the hardware in the capsule and Velcro. It is believed that Velcro may have created the static spark in the 100% O2 atmosphere that caused the Apollo 1 fire.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a motor that stirred the Oxygen in the tanks.
 
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13

"Damaged Teflon-insulated electrical wires powering the stirrer motor caught fire when power was applied."

I know it's Wikipedia, and anybody can edit it, but it's usually a pretty accurate source.
Click to expand...

I think 13 and 1 are being confused.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was very tired when I replied to that. I even quoted 13 from Wikipedia, as though I totally misread the original post. The problem with Apollo 1 was the heavy use of plastics of all sorts, not just velcro.
 
Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
You're right. I was very tired when I replied to that. I even quoted 13 from Wikipedia, as though I totally misread the original post. The problem with Apollo 1 was the heavy use of plastics of all sorts, not just velcro.
Click to expand...
I was thinking I remembered further that it was the rubber cement that ignited because of the spark on a velcro pull, but it was all just one of the theories on why it happened.

I was tired too... it is my father-in-law, not my step-father (those dang trips to Maui throw your clock off 😉 )
 
Originally posted by: sourshishke
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: sourshishke
Its long

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...61061829859642&q=Dark+side+of+the+moon
Click to expand...

And really, really, bad.

So many quotes are obviously taken out of context, the leaps of logic are insultingly stupid, most points already debunked in this thread.
Click to expand...


This was a April fools joke,its all fake.
Click to expand...

Is that revealed at the end? I only made it about 2/3 through.
 
Originally posted by: TheSleeper
I mean just landing on the moon SAFELY and leaving the moon "SAFELY" already require lots and lots of preparations and safety considerations.

OK, even if the moon landing was true, so, why how come after 1969 til 2006, totally 37 years, there is no other Moon programe to follow up ?

As far as I know, the Moon is full of raw materials (uranium ??) for fission.

Any comments ?
Click to expand...

I don't know who told you that the moon is full of raw materials. It's mostly a barren rock. Getting to any valuable materials would be supper inefficient when we still have superfluous materials on Earth.
 
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
I disagree. The space program did not exist. The United States does not exist. We are living in a total information lockdown under the Soviet Union as it should be; they rule the entire world and have very creative authors who make up all these stories about "wars" in "Iraq", "Afghanistan", and the other things going on between the different nations.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

I like this theory best of all, wouldn't that be a fascinating existence!
 
Personally I was really pissed off when Fox did their moon conspiracy thing. I couldn't believe that a major news network would knowingly spread misinformation like that.
 
Originally posted by: Armitage
Originally posted by: BrownTown
if i'm not mistaken with a good telescope (prolly it has to be really really good) you can actually see the abandoned lander from earth.
Click to expand...

Nope, you can't see it from earth. Or from Hubble either for that matter. They do bounce lasers off of some corner reflectors left there though.

Also, do people who say we never made it to the moon also dispute that we have rovers on Mars, or satelites around Saturn and other planets? And they also must think that USSR and USA actually worked together during the Cold War to both send landers to the Moon (USSR was just robots).
Click to expand...

That's one of my favorite arguments - the USSR would've sold their left nut to prove that this was a hoax. And if anybody had the means to prove it, they did.

Do they beleive that there is a space station orbiting earth (casue i know a good telescope can see that thing)?.
Click to expand...

You can see it naked-eye (http://www.heaves-above.com) but of course you need a decent telescope to make out that it's anything other then a bright speck moving across the sky.

Anyways, sorry about the P&N rant, but yeah personally I'd be OK with slashing NASA's budget in half or more. Is running little rovers around Mars really worth 500 million?, many of the research satelites are good, but there really is no pressing need so far as im concerned to learn about the chemical composition of other planets and such when there are much bigger problems in the world then wondering if liquid water was on Mars millions of years ago...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

First of all, the NASA budget is an insignificant portion of our government's budget. People assume that it's a large chunk when in actuality, if anything, the program runs on minimal funds. There are countless government programs that are more worthy of cutting.

Second, why would you be able to see an object on the moon with the Hubble Space Telescope? It was designed for deep-space observation. Telescopes on the Earth are similar in that they're not designed to observe the Moon. If you built a telescope with the correct specifications, it wouldn't be difficult to observe the moon. If you used adaptive optics to remove atmospheric distortion, you could probably see the lunar lander. No one has done this because it would be a waste of time and money just to have conspiracy theorists claim that the lander was placed there at a later date by robots or something.


Originally posted by: fsardis
no, dude, no need to rush. let sweden get the moon while USA sits back and follows treaties.
my suggestion isnt entirely that they didnt go to the moon. i am suggesting that not all pics come from the moon.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that Sweden, possibly the least aggressive nation in the world, is going to put military bases on the moon? Are you insane? The only use you could possibly have for a military base on the moon would be a super-expensive ICBM platform, but why do that? I could also see it being used as an expensive mass driver, but only for the launching of spacecraft toward other planets. This would not make it very useful as a weapon even if you did load explosives onto the mass driver.


Originally posted by: smopoim86
I don't think we did because of many reasons, but the most logical is: if we have already been to the moon with 30 year old technology why is it taking so long to redevolope the lunar program. They have spent the previous 5-10 years planning a trip to the moon that is not scedueled till 2012.
Click to expand...

Planning a lunar mission on minimal funds when the country is not in a space race is a trying ordeal. First of all, in order to minimize cost, certain points of the decade are more ideal than others due to various factors.

The actual technology to launch us to the moon would be pretty much the same. Rocketry has improved very little. One of NASA's current pet projects is the development of alternative means for reaching space. The X-Prize was a good first step; the use of a primary vehicle to lift the shuttle into the atmosphere followed by ignition of old-fashioned rocket boosters.

Frankly, at this point there just isn't much reason to go to the moon. Why rush?

I think fsardis is nuts, dude, how can you use these countless arguments that have been debunked hundreds of times already? You "judge and draw conclusions only through hard facts" yet all of your excuses have been factually incorrect? Also, you corrected someone for bad grammar and then used bad grammar yourself! If you're going to troll like that, you have to at least use impeccable grammar in the post!

 
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Are you claiming that Sweden, possibly the least aggressive nation in the world, is going to put military bases on the moon? Are you insane?
Click to expand...

I think the real question here is are you insane? Man, talk like that and Gustavus Adolphus is liable to come over there and slap you around. I for one welcome our Ikea bearing Swedish overlords.
 
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Are you claiming that Sweden, possibly the least aggressive nation in the world, is going to put military bases on the moon? Are you insane?
Click to expand...

I think the real question here is are you insane? Man, talk like that and Gustavus Adolphus is liable to come over there and slap you around. I for one welcome our Ikea bearing Swedish overlords.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the existence a military commander from 400 years ago changes everything we know about Sweden today 😛 They're mass murderers over there!

I, too, would like to state that all along I supported our new masters and their plans for the conquest of the United States of Ikea.
 
Originally posted by: sourshishke
What about the foot-prints?I thought space has no water,how can they make
marks on the surface?It should be like power right?And what about this vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvZPItszTI


This proves it was fake
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? My sarcasm detector went off, but that could have been random background noise.

Also your link doesn't work 😛 Edit: nevermind, I copy-pasted it wrong, but damn it that video was already linked in this thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top