Sure they went to the Moon with a 40 kbyte computer. Why not? They had elaborate manual procedures to make it work, however. When the X-20 program (DynaSoar) was active, the Boeing company figured out a way for the astronaut to manually pilot the vehicle all the way from orbit to a ground landing. We were able to do impressive things back in the days of slide rules.
The Moon Buggy was not for funsies. It was to get them farther from the landing site for samples and observations.
Why would there be a crater when the dust layer was thin, backed by rock, and the exhaust plume had expanded like a huge bubble? (That's what they do in vacuum: take a sharp outward turn past the exhaust cone.) That like expecting a helicopter to produce a sandstorm whenever it landed on arid ground.
13 feet on the moon would be 2+ feet on the Earth. Try that. Then try it again wearing 175 pounds of Moon Suit. With the bending of your limbs constrained by the fabric and joints. (We are working up to the realization that you don't know what you are talking about.)
The Moon is about 350,000 km from the Earth. The light speed delay is essentially 1 second. System delays would make it longer. Do you have any scientific reference that substantiates a claim that the delay was shorter?
Whether you see stars or not depends on how dark adapted you are and whether you have been gazing into the star field for some time, or glance at it from a lighted environment.
Not all the data is destroyed. Mostly what happened is that we still have the data, but it is on storage media for which we no longer have readout systems. That is a stupid oopsie, but not a deliberate plot. And what are we missing that you would be so concerned about?
We didn't "destroy" the technology to go to the Moon. We just threw it aside and let it rot, for want of continuing to go there. It takes a huge effort in time and money to make and launch an Apollo mission. We couldn't afford to keep it up. (Vietnam War and all that.) You can see it in museums. We also have lost the knowledge of how to build 16-inch naval cannon, for the same reason. Elon Musk is revving up a new approach. (Don't hold your breath for the Space Launch System. It is NASA's equivalent to building a pyramid.)
The Apollo 7 mission never left low Earth orbit because it was not meant to. It was an early test of the system.
The Van Allen belts did not destroy any computers. Not even for the lunar probe missions. Not even the electronics on Explorer I which was the satellite that detected them. Nobody was killed by the Van Allen belts. It makes a difference whether you are passing through at close to 10 km/sec or hanging out for a long time. (By the way, you shield a computer by putting it in a shielding box, not by making the entire spacecraft a shield.)
If all the other thousand pieces of evidence are as flimsy as these, you would not be able to sit on it without it collapsing.
Why did Michael Collins say he couldn't see any stars in space, clown? All while Neil armstrong looked like he wanted to blow his head off after supposedly achieving the greatest accomplishment in human history.
Did you even read what I said? There I am in the Apollo capsule, with the lights on, trying to look through a porthole that is reflecting the light. Am I going to see stars? Or there I am on the lunar surface in the glare of sunlight off the regolith, incapable of getting dark adapted. Am I going to see stars? A camera won't, which is why they were not photographed that way.
Different astronauts had different circumstances and different dark adaptation thresholds. I can go outside my house at night on a clear sky and not see many stars, due to the light pollution from my downtown area. I know they are there, but my eyes are getting old.
Because the spacecraft has bright interior lights. Hop into your car at night, turn all the interior lights on, then tell me how well you can see the stars without rolling the windows down.
Same thing for why stars don’t appear in the background of photos from the moon. The brightness of the light reflected by lunar rocks/soil washes out the starlight, which is too dim to creat enough contrast. That and the cameras they brought weren’t telescopes, so they weren’t designed to picture stars. Again, try taking photos of the stars with an old hand held camera and see how well they show up.
Lol, that was my point..
I lost all desire to engage with this moon landing BS , after I saw a giy trying to compare a leaf blower here on earth, to rocket exhaust on the moon.
Soooo.... after that I just gave up trying to explain aerodynamics and propulsión to people who don't want to learn real science.
Sure they went to the Moon with a 40 kbyte computer. Why not? They had elaborate manual procedures to make it work, however. When the X-20 program (DynaSoar) was active, the Boeing company figured out a way for the astronaut to manually pilot the vehicle all the way from orbit to a ground landing. We were able to do impressive things back in the days of slide rules.
The Moon Buggy was not for funsies. It was to get them farther from the landing site for samples and observations.
Why would there be a crater when the dust layer was thin, backed by rock, and the exhaust plume had expanded like a huge bubble? (That's what they do in vacuum: take a sharp outward turn past the exhaust cone.) That like expecting a helicopter to produce a sandstorm whenever it landed on arid ground.
13 feet on the moon would be 2+ feet on the Earth. Try that. Then try it again wearing 175 pounds of Moon Suit. With the bending of your limbs constrained by the fabric and joints. (We are working up to the realization that you don't know what you are talking about.)
The Moon is about 350,000 km from the Earth. The light speed delay is essentially 1 second. System delays would make it longer. Do you have any scientific reference that substantiates a claim that the delay was shorter?
Whether you see stars or not depends on how dark adapted you are and whether you have been gazing into the star field for some time, or glance at it from a lighted environment.
Not all the data is destroyed. Mostly what happened is that we still have the data, but it is on storage media for which we no longer have readout systems. That is a stupid oopsie, but not a deliberate plot. And what are we missing that you would be so concerned about?
We didn't "destroy" the technology to go to the Moon. We just threw it aside and let it rot, for want of continuing to go there. It takes a huge effort in time and money to make and launch an Apollo mission. We couldn't afford to keep it up. (Vietnam War and all that.) You can see it in museums. We also have lost the knowledge of how to build 16-inch naval cannon, for the same reason. Elon Musk is revving up a new approach. (Don't hold your breath for the Space Launch System. It is NASA's equivalent to building a pyramid.)
The Apollo 7 mission never left low Earth orbit because it was not meant to. It was an early test of the system.
The Van Allen belts did not destroy any computers. Not even for the lunar probe missions. Not even the electronics on Explorer I which was the satellite that detected them. Nobody was killed by the Van Allen belts. It makes a difference whether you are passing through at close to 10 km/sec or hanging out for a long time. (By the way, you shield a computer by putting it in a shielding box, not by making the entire spacecraft a shield.)
If all the other thousand pieces of evidence are as flimsy as these, you would not be able to sit on it without it collapsing.
Why did Michael Collins say he couldn't see any stars in space, clown? All while Neil armstrong looked like he wanted to blow his head off after supposedly achieving the greatest accomplishment in human history.
Did you even read what I said? There I am in the Apollo capsule, with the lights on, trying to look through a porthole that is reflecting the light. Am I going to see stars? Or there I am on the lunar surface in the glare of sunlight off the regolith, incapable of getting dark adapted. Am I going to see stars? A camera won't, which is why they were not photographed that way.
Different astronauts had different circumstances and different dark adaptation thresholds. I can go outside my house at night on a clear sky and not see many stars, due to the light pollution from my downtown area. I know they are there, but my eyes are getting old.
Because the spacecraft has bright interior lights. Hop into your car at night, turn all the interior lights on, then tell me how well you can see the stars without rolling the windows down.
Same thing for why stars don’t appear in the background of photos from the moon. The brightness of the light reflected by lunar rocks/soil washes out the starlight, which is too dim to creat enough contrast. That and the cameras they brought weren’t telescopes, so they weren’t designed to picture stars. Again, try taking photos of the stars with an old hand held camera and see how well they show up.
I drive my car every night in rural country and see a fuck ton of stars.
Do you turn on all your interior lights?
Is this ScIeNCE...?
Cause it look like science, but it doesn't fit with my conformation bias, so it can't be true.
It is science when confirmation bias is not involved.
Lol, that was my point..
I lost all desire to engage with this moon landing BS , after I saw a giy trying to compare a leaf blower here on earth, to rocket exhaust on the moon.
Soooo.... after that I just gave up trying to explain aerodynamics and propulsión to people who don't want to learn real science.
https://www.sibrel.com/
Here's the fact-checkers debunking it.
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/09/fact-check-deathbed-confession-video-does-not-prove-moon-landing-hoax.html
My friend down the street was over the room of computers at Huntsville. He is a brain. We went to the moon.