Another look at the moon landing.

[ozso]

I'm not really a sceptic, but at the same time some things make me wonder sometimes. I'm watching Pawn Stars right now and this guy comes in with a 1975 video game consul, and they're going on and on about how advanced and revolutionary it was for back then. Like "believe it or not this came out in 1972!".

This is incredibly advanced technology 5 years after Apollo 11:

And so of course what comes to mind is, they started doing manned moon missions 5 years before something this primitive was considered to be an amazing technological breakthrough?

 

[The Liturgist]

And so of course what comes to mind is, they started doing manned moon missions 5 years before something this primitive was considered to be an amazing technological breakthrough?

This is a logical fallacy since the technology required for spaceflight does not depend on the technology of computer graphics: they are two entirely separate fields which were initially unrelated.*

Apollo was run with much larger System/360 computers at NASA Mission Control; the onboard Apollo Guidance Computer was a huge achievement of miniaturization but it couldn’t do the graphics that pong could do.

Advanced computer graphics are not required to do rocketry or manned spaceflight, but Pong wouldn’t have been possible without SAGE, the IBM computer system for supervising nuclear war installed in Omaha and at Cheyenne Mountain.

Indeed, computer graphics like Pong are totally irrelevant for manned spaceflight: Mercury didn’t even have computers with primitive semi-graphical terminals - these were introduced with the upgraded Mission Operations Control Rooms at Houston for the Gemini program. Rather Mercury controllers were working on the basis of blinking lights, printouts and analog indicators, which is sufficient.

Likewise, the Soviets sent the only successful space probes to Venus, as well as lunar probes and the pioneering Vostok and workhorse Soyuz despite having only clones of the IBM System/360 made through espionage, and really horrible domestic computers. Since the Soviets were as far away from electronic displays like Pong as the East is from the West, Soyuz spacecraft used a machine called an IMP “Globus” which was an electromechanical display that showed the astronauts where they were in relation to the surface of the Earth. This was important because the Soviets lacked a worldwide network to communicate with orbiting spacecraft and thus Vostok, Voshkod and Soyuz could talk to mission control only when in range of antennaes in the USSR.
*Indeed early rocketry like the German V2 did not use digital computers (although the Third Reich had Conrad Zuse’s experimental electro-mechanical digital computer, which was inferior to the electronic digital computers used by the Manhattan project, but the Germans did not adequately fund Zuse.

 

[Apple Sky]

NASA admits MAN Never went to the MOON!​

 

[David Lamb]

NASA admits MAN Never went to the MOON!​

So says youtube. What about NASA itself? Their website: Apollo 11 - NASA includes this description of one of the videos available on the site:

"Watch highlights from the Apollo 11 mission including the launch on July 16, 1969, the landing of the lunar module, Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon, splashdown, and more"

If NASA itself were really "admitting that man never went to the moon," they would take down the parts of their website which state that man did walk on the moon. Also, the video you posted is not about moon landings at all, though it mentions them as having happened. It's about the Orion spacecraft. ABC news in its description of the same video said (my emphasis):

"Smith acknowledged that the same design that allowed Neil Armstrong to leave his footprints on the Moon could take astronauts even further, but with modern technology.

"We've got smartphones in our pockets, but the physics and atmosphere hasn't changed since the 60's," Smith told ABC News on Tuesday. "This capsule shape facilitates deep space exploration. The shuttle could never return from deep space locations. It could not withstand the extreme G loads and heating. Orion has been designed for those challenging environments."

I am fairly sure that if the video was really NASA admitting that the moon landings didn't happen, the ABC New report would have mentioned it.

 

[HantsUK]

NASA admits MAN Never went to the MOON!​

I think this must be the wrong video. No where does it claim that NASA never went to the moon (it's actaully someone who is skeptical about the manned Mars mission going ahead in 2024).

Would you buy a new model of car, if Ford said that they did not need to do any testing on the brakes because that was all done decades ago on previous models? By the way, you would be the very first person to actually use the brakes. If they fail (they shouldn't), it will probably be fatal. Nothing to worry about - the brakes worked perfectly on an older model 60 years ago. The physics of braking have not changed.

 

[HantsUK]

This is incredibly advanced technology 5 years after Apollo 11:

Comparing technology that a consumer could afford with what could be done by the most wealthy and technically advanced nation is not a fair comparision.

 

[Apple Sky]

I think this must be the wrong video. No where does it claim that NASA never went to the moon

Yes it does, watch it again & listen to what he is saying, then come back to me again.

 

[pgp_protector]

Yes it does, watch it again & listen to what he is saying, then come back to me again.

Transcript.
Not seeing it.
0:07 Orion is getting ready to launch
0:13 [Music]
0:20 [Music]
0:22 my name is Kelly Smith and I work on
0:24 navigation and guidance for Orion Orion
0:27 is NASA's next-generation spacecraft
0:29 built with versatility in mind it can
0:31 take astronauts deeper into space than
0:33 we've ever gone before to an asteroid or
0:35 even onto Mars
0:36 for these missions Orion has to be one
0:39 tough spacecraft with sanding high
0:41 speeds and searing temperatures and
0:43 extreme radiation before we can send
0:46 astronauts into space on Orion we have
0:48 to test all of its systems and there's
0:50 only one way to know if we got it right
0:52 no astronaut will be a boy the
0:54 spacecraft is loaded with sensors to
0:56 record and measure all aspects of the
0:58 flight in every detail it all begins
1:01 with launch aboard a Delta 4 as the
1:04 spacecraft and the upper stage begin
1:06 their first lap around Earth Mission
1:08 Control in Houston is monitoring the
1:09 progress of the flight in the innovative
1:11 Orion's over a hundred miles up and
1:14 going about 17,000 miles per hour just
1:17 as it passes over the Indian Ocean we
1:20 lose communication
1:22 as we get further away from Earth we'll
1:25 pass through the Van Allen belts an area
1:28 of dangerous radiation
1:39 you
1:46 radiation like this can harm the
1:48 guidance systems onboard computers or
1:50 other electronics on arrival naturally
1:53 we have to pass through this danger zone
1:54 twice once up and once back
2:04 [Music]
2:05 but Orion has protection shielding will
2:09 be put to the test as the vehicle cuts
2:10 through the waves of radiation sensors
2:13 aboard will record a radiation level for
2:15 scientists to study we must solve these
2:17 challenges before we sent people through
2:19 this region of space
2:25 it's great to be a part of this first
2:28 space flight for Orion and we're looking
2:30 forward to beginning a new chapter in
2:32 human space exploration

 

[Apple Sky]

1:11 Orion's over a hundred miles up and
1:14 going about 17,000 miles per hour just
1:17 as it passes over the Indian Ocean we
1:20 lose communication
1:22 as we get further away from Earth we'll
1:25 pass through the Van Allen belts an area
1:28 of dangerous radiation
1:39 you
1:46 radiation like this can harm the
1:48 guidance systems onboard computers or
1:50 other electronics on arrival naturally
1:53 we have to pass through this danger zone
1:54 twice once up and once back

I thought they already done this on their supposed Apollo 11 mission in 69 & how far out is the moon, a whopping 238,855 miles

The Van Allen Belts start at about 1000 miles up.

Watch @ 2:45 & then get back to me.

NASA finally admits not going to the moon

NASA finally admits not going to the moon

153news.net

 

[pgp_protector]

I thought they already done this on their supposed Apollo 11 mission in 69 & how far out is the moon, a whopping 238,855 miles

The Van Allen Belts start at about 1000 miles up.

Watch @ 2:45 & then get back to me.

NASA finally admits not going to the moon

NASA finally admits not going to the moon

153news.net

That's a different video though.
You stated.

Yes it does, watch it again & listen to what he is saying, then come back to me again.

to

I think this must be the wrong video. No where does it claim that NASA never went to the moon (it's actaully someone who is skeptical about the manned Mars mission going ahead in 2024).

Would you buy a new model of car, if Ford said that they did not need to do any testing on the brakes because that was all done decades ago on previous models? By the way, you would be the very first person to actually use the brakes. If they fail (they shouldn't), it will probably be fatal. Nothing to worry about - the brakes worked perfectly on an older model 60 years ago. The physics of braking have not changed.

from this video,

 

[pgp_protector]

And the FULL interview in context.

And that whole "could" was from a LIST of different options.
Like I Could go to the store today, or I could go to Target.
That doesn't mean I never went to the store or that I never went to target.

So once again NASA Did NOT admit they didn't go to the moon

 

[prodromos]

So once again NASA Did NOT admit they didn't go to the moon

@Apple Sky had posted this a while ago and had it thoroughly debunked back then. She keeps recycling the same failed arguments in the hope that people won't remember the last time it was debunked.

 

[Apple Sky]

And the FULL interview in context.

And that whole "could" was from a LIST of different options.
Like I Could go to the store today, or I could go to Target.
That doesn't mean I never went to the store or that I never went to target.

So once again NASA Did NOT admit they didn't go to the moon

Well why on earth did he say 'that will be able to go to the moon etc ? I thought they'd already been.

 

[pgp_protector]

Well why on earth did he say 'that will be able to go to the moon etc ? I thought they'd already been.

As answered.

Like I Could go to the store today, or I could go to Target.
That doesn't mean I never went to the store or that I never went to target.

 

[pgp_protector]

Another basic English example.

My current car is quite old, but If I can buy a new car, I will be able to go to Tampa, and Orlando or Even Alaska.
That doesn't mean that I never went to Tampa and Orlando, or even Alaska.

 

[HantsUK]

I thought they already done this on their supposed Apollo 11 mission in 69 & how far out is the moon, a whopping 238,855 miles

The Van Allen Belts start at about 1000 miles up.

Watch @ 2:45 & then get back to me.

That was getting on for 60 years ago and for a different space vehicle.

Your argument is like asking why Ford would need to design and test the brakes on a new car. Did they not do this decades ago on previous models? And implying something suspicious about Ford.

One big difference between now and 60 years ago, which will affect space vehicles, is electronics. Semiconductor geometries are now 1000's of times smaller, which means they are much more susceptible to radiation.

 

[Apple Sky]

That was getting on for 60 years ago and for a different space vehicle.

Your argument is like asking why Ford would need to design and test the brakes on a new car. Did they not do this decades ago on previous models? And implying something suspicious about Ford.

One big difference between now and 60 years ago, which will affect space vehicles, is electronics. Semiconductor geometries are now 1000's of times smaller, which means they are much more susceptible to radiation.

Fair enough, lets hope this fairy tale has a happy ending

 

[David Lamb]

Well why on earth did he say 'that will be able to go to the moon etc ? I thought they'd already been.

If I said, "I will be able to go to Wales next year," would that mean I had never been to Wales before? Of course not. Similarly, saying, "That will be able to go to the moon," doesn't mean that nobody has been to the moon before. Incidentally, I notice that you are now linking to a completely different video. Before, you were linking to one about the spacecraft Orion.

 

[Apple Sky]

"That will be able to go to the moon," doesn't mean that nobody has been to the moon before. Incidentally,

What he clearly states is 'that we will be able to go to the moon' ???

 

[David Lamb]

What he clearly states is 'that we will be able to go to the moon' ???

Does he also clearly state that "we will be able to go to the moon for the first time," or "what we will be able to go to the moon in reality, unlike those fraudsters in 1969"? Of course not!