U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-23-2018, 06:21 AM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,270 posts, read 936,140 times
Reputation: 12519

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eqttrdr View Post
We literally need air bags to bounce Rovers off the surface of Mars when we send something up there now.....
No, we do not. Literally.

The Viking program used a combination of parachutes and retrorockets to achieve soft landings on Mars in 1976. You're obviously ignorant of this. The fact that other landing technology has more recently been used is irrelevant, except to illustrate that you can't be bothered to know anything about Mars exploration except what occasionally pops out of headlines you read.

Yet this demonstrably wrong idea of yours - that we need airbags to land on Mars - is a staple of your conspiracy theory. Think about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eqttrdr View Post
BUT somehow in the 60's we had the technology to smoothly land a rudimentary vessel (at best) gentle as a feather..... AND have it smoothly take off again, have enough fuel to get back and program the capsule to land exactly on Earth where we wanted in to..
Ah, yes, the whole WELL, I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE IT!, as if your personal incredulity means squat.

By the way, the Soviets did exactly what you describe above between 1970 and 1976. They did it three times. Three times, they launched spacecraft to the moon. They landed gently. They remotely collected lunar samples, took off again, and returned to Earth (not to exact coordinates, but the Apollo mission didn't do that either - another fact about which you've inadvertently demonstrated your ignorance) - such is the beauty of landing in the ocean or the steppes: you don't need to land exactly here or exactly there.

The only difference between Apollo and Luna is that the latter carried no people. But then, in your comments you don't present that as an impediment. Oh, wait, let me guess - the USSR faked it, too! But for some reason, they decided not to fake a manned landing, despite desperately wanting to achieve as much! Right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eqttrdr View Post
Just sayin'...
You know you've just admitted to this bit of rhetorical nonsense, right?

Quote:
The purpose of this argument method is to keep asking leading questions to attempt to influence spectators' views, regardless of whatever answers are given. The term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. Additionally, this tactic is a way for a crank to escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

 
Old 03-23-2018, 05:22 PM
 
33,821 posts, read 17,312,451 times
Reputation: 18556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856 View Post
The Viking program used a combination of parachutes and retrorockets to achieve soft landings on Mars in 1976.
Curses! - forgot Viking.
 
Old 03-23-2018, 08:56 PM
 
1,373 posts, read 848,528 times
Reputation: 2208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
You're behind the curve. Curiosity soft-landed using a skycrane back in 2012.

The airbags were cheap, lightweight and way less complicated, and good enough - which is what engineering is about.

Well, we had a very complex pattern recognition and course correction system known as an "astronaut" in the loop. Neil Armstrong was a piloting demigod, take a look at his career.

Don't think anyone ever described the lunar ascent as "smooth", and again - with astronauts making course corrections (backed by massive mainframes right here on Earth doing the math), it's not a crazy hard problem to solve.

But in the interest of full inquiry: Which particular technology do you feel wasn't up to the task, and why?
Every single last bit of it.... required WAY too much processing power that was not available at the time period
 
Old 03-23-2018, 09:43 PM
 
28,638 posts, read 40,613,958 times
Reputation: 37331
Quote:
Originally Posted by eqttrdr View Post
Every single last bit of it.... required WAY too much processing power that was not available at the time period
You really don't understand do you? I mean, you're not being obtuse, you simply don't have the knowledge or the drive to study about the subject you''re trying to talk about. That is sad.
 
Old 03-23-2018, 09:51 PM
 
Location: NW NJ & SE Oahu
4,636 posts, read 5,505,833 times
Reputation: 4233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
You really don't understand do you? I mean, you're not being obtuse, you simply don't have the knowledge or the drive to study about the subject you''re trying to talk about. That is sad.
...and rigorously, diligently, scrupulously __________.
 
Old 03-23-2018, 10:12 PM
 
28,638 posts, read 40,613,958 times
Reputation: 37331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tantalust View Post
...and rigorously, diligently, scrupulously __________.
No. My attitude has changed about that poster. I don't think conspiracy has anything to do with his/her stance. I think it is a lack of knowledge and understanding. I would hope eqttrdr decides to do some research into how they accomplished it with the tools available at the time.
 
Old 03-23-2018, 11:34 PM
 
33,821 posts, read 17,312,451 times
Reputation: 18556
Quote:
Originally Posted by eqttrdr View Post
Every single last bit of it...
That's broad. Apollo broke new ground in propulsion, life support, telemetry, systems integration - to say nothing of the techniques that had to be developed to merely manage a project of that size and complexity.

Quote:
..required WAY too much processing power that was not available at the time period
And that's very specific, actually. Where was the processing power missing? Launch, mid-course, lunar landing, rendezvous? Systems management on-board?

Admittedly, you're edging close to something - the Lunar Module on-board computer was close to overloading in 1969, famously putting up "1202" errors. However, the computer scientists were very, very smart and Armstrong very, very cool under pressure.

But Apollo used surprisingly little real-time computing, mostly really simple deadband algorithm controls. The heavy number crunching for course corrections etc. was done by mainframes on the ground - much of it ahead of time. Mainframes excel at that sort of thing. And the modern insistence on putting a microchip in everything hadn't been invented, and nobody expected fancy graphical interfaces.

Newton had the math figured out centuries earlier, after all.
 
Old 03-24-2018, 12:16 AM
 
Location: NW NJ & SE Oahu
4,636 posts, read 5,505,833 times
Reputation: 4233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
No. My attitude has changed about that poster. I don't think conspiracy has anything to do with his/her stance. I think it is a lack of knowledge and understanding.
May I entertain you all with an entirely new conspiracy theory of mine: eqttrdr and others are actually not believing a single word they have claimed about the 1969 Apollo mission. They're playing games.
 
Old 03-24-2018, 12:18 AM
 
28,638 posts, read 40,613,958 times
Reputation: 37331
I wouldn't be surprised. Time to bail. This thread is getting old and stale anyway. Let them wallow in their own crap.
 
Old 03-24-2018, 12:29 AM
 
Location: NW NJ & SE Oahu
4,636 posts, read 5,505,833 times
Reputation: 4233
I don't dare stay here now, I'll go crazy.

Truth be told, I find it really hard to believe that the first working undersea transatlantic cable was laid in 1875. Worked, but only for about 3 weeks.

Last edited by Tantalust; 03-24-2018 at 12:34 AM.. Reason: I forget
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:58 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top