• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

Hans said:
Par for the course - it is deliciously ironic that the one person in these threads that is thoroughly gullible is the same person telling everyone else that they are - but of course that is all part of performance.
Click to expand...

I'd like to point out that his citations thus far are his own blogs.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Then there's the "barbeque roll".



I remember something called a sandcaster in the old Traveler RPG. But I think it was a defensive measure against energy weapons. But a missile that maneuvered in relatively close (say 50 to 100 miles) and then discharged a cloud of small pellets at a high rate of closure would be devastating.
Click to expand...


<cough> ;)

Seriously, though, I'm a huge Traveller geek. In the original space combat rules, sandcasters were effective against missiles, in addition to certain beam weapons. Some adaptations to other RPG systems retained this feature, and some did not.
 
SpitfireIX said:
<cough> ;)

Seriously, though, I'm a huge Traveller geek. In the original space combat rules, sandcasters were effective against missiles, in addition to certain beam weapons. Some adaptations to other RPG systems retained this feature, and some did not.
Click to expand...
That's how I remembered it, but my Little Black Books and High Guard are buried in a box somewhere around here (I hope), so thanks for confirming that.
 
Actually, given that the technology is well know, published and tested by now, I wonder how much it would cost to re-create an apollo project. The hard work has already been done.
Maybe the deniers should start a Kickstarter, re-use all technology and then show that by doing exactly the same nothing happens. That would be real evidence.
And if they are proven wrong (which they will be), hey another man on the moon :)
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Actually, given that the technology is well know, published and tested by now, I wonder how much it would cost to re-create an apollo project. The hard work has already been done.
Maybe the deniers should start a Kickstarter, re-use all technology and then show that by doing exactly the same nothing happens. That would be real evidence.
And if they are proven wrong (which they will be), hey another man on the moon :)
Click to expand...

This is a common proposal. It's laudable in principle, but there are a number of problems with it.

First, the industry has moved on. Recreating the Apollo project would mean regressing to a mode of design, construction, and testing that is no longer practiced and would be prohibitively expensive to resurrect.

While the hard work has been done in the sense that the foundation science still exists and the designs are committed to paper, there is much more to actually executing the design. NASA is currently exploring whether to rebuild the Rocketdyne F-1, and they've had to call a lot of people out of retirement to fill in the many gaps. Four years is about the limit of corporate knowledge in aerospace. To this end, we maintain -- in several aerospace companies -- "trickle" programs where we fund the engineering and manufacturing of certain once-critical things at a trickle pace, just so we don't forget how to do it. We've found over the decades that this is far cheaper than trying to get it going again once it's stopped.

Sadly the Saturn V is no longer street legal. Not only has the industry changed, but so has the law under which it operates. Nowadays rockets that use frangible and pyrotechnic fasteners have to employ capture devices that prevent the shards from becoming hazardous debris. The Saturns didn't have those. That opens to a broader issue of increased safety concerns. In order to fly the Saturn V again, the design would have to be adapted to bring it "up to code," as they say in the building trades.

And that comes down to the bottom line: If we were going to reproduce Apollo today, we really would want to do a better job of it. While we would certainly build upon the experience of the past -- note how much Orion looks like Apollo, and works like it -- we would need to use modern techniques and comply with modern standards. And that would result in a similar, but different product.
 
JayUtah said:
This is a common proposal. It's laudable in principle, but there are a number of problems with it.

First, the industry has moved on. Recreating the Apollo project would mean regressing to a mode of design, construction, and testing that is no longer practiced and would be prohibitively expensive to resurrect.

.
Click to expand...

It would be similar to building a 1980's home computer, if home computers had stopped being manufactured after 1985. (imagine no home 'puters, no smartphones or pads :eek: ) Sure you could do it but it would be expensive and would not be 'up to code' in that you'd have to bring people out of retirement to write code for it.

Instead one would want to use modern techniques developed for industrial manufacturing, and financial organizations, but that's going to be tough and take time. Sure a few things such as power supplies and hard drive miniaturization will be directly applicable perhaps, but its going to be a while before you get a desktop computer.
 
jaydeehess said:
It would be similar to building a 1980's home computer, if home computers had stopped being manufactured after 1985. (imagine no home 'puters, no smartphones or pads :eek: ) Sure you could do it but it would be expensive and would not be 'up to code' in that you'd have to bring people out of retirement to write code for it.

Instead one would want to use modern techniques developed for industrial manufacturing, and financial organizations, but that's going to be tough and take time. Sure a few things such as power supplies and hard drive miniaturization will be directly applicable perhaps, but its going to be a while before you get a desktop computer.
Click to expand...

Its like people who claim we couldn't build a Giza pyramid - they are partially correct we couldn't build it the way the AE did not only do we not know the exact methods they used by we lack the experience and expertise. We could certainly build one that looked liked the originals but not in the same way. Its like we could at great expense build and sail the fleets that fought at Trafalgar and Jutland but it would take an enormous amount of time and effort to regain the skills and technology to build such things in the way it was done then.
 
Hans said:
Its like people who claim we couldn't build a Giza pyramid - they are partially correct we couldn't build it the way the AE did not only do we not know the exact methods they used by we lack the experience and expertise. We could certainly build one that looked liked the originals but not in the same way. Its like we could at great expense build and sail the fleets that fought at Trafalgar and Jutland but it would take an enormous amount of time and effort to regain the skills and technology to build such things in the way it was done then.
Click to expand...


There is also the small matter of finding 50,000 slaves to do the heavy lifting!
 
JayUtah said:
This is a common proposal. It's laudable in principle, but there are a number of problems with it.

First, the industry has moved on. Recreating the Apollo project would mean regressing to a mode of design, construction, and testing that is no longer practiced and would be prohibitively expensive to resurrect.

While the hard work has been done in the sense that the foundation science still exists and the designs are committed to paper, there is much more to actually executing the design. NASA is currently exploring whether to rebuild the Rocketdyne F-1, and they've had to call a lot of people out of retirement to fill in the many gaps. Four years is about the limit of corporate knowledge in aerospace. To this end, we maintain -- in several aerospace companies -- "trickle" programs where we fund the engineering and manufacturing of certain once-critical things at a trickle pace, just so we don't forget how to do it. We've found over the decades that this is far cheaper than trying to get it going again once it's stopped.

Sadly the Saturn V is no longer street legal. Not only has the industry changed, but so has the law under which it operates. Nowadays rockets that use frangible and pyrotechnic fasteners have to employ capture devices that prevent the shards from becoming hazardous debris. The Saturns didn't have those. That opens to a broader issue of increased safety concerns. In order to fly the Saturn V again, the design would have to be adapted to bring it "up to code," as they say in the building trades.

And that comes down to the bottom line: If we were going to reproduce Apollo today, we really would want to do a better job of it. While we would certainly build upon the experience of the past -- note how much Orion looks like Apollo, and works like it -- we would need to use modern techniques and comply with modern standards. And that would result in a similar, but different product.
Click to expand...

Awww, too bad. Pesky safety regulations.
And I understand NASA can de better as it actually learns from experience, but bear in mind that I proposed that appolo hoaxers did this project and learning is not something they seem to do well. Reproducing on the other hand seems to go ok, given the copy-paste content usually posted.
 
JayUtah said:
Science-fiction spacecraft typically ignore the effects of entry into a planet's atmosphere at high speeds, which produces a huge amount of aerodynamic heating. This heat must be dealt with in some way, in practical spacecraft. It is one of the most challenging parts of engineering a spacecraft that must land on Earth after traveling at space speeds.
Click to expand...

One thing I always wondered: isn't there a way to slow down enough to avoid this effect while still landing?
 
smartcooky said:
There is also the small matter of finding 50,000 slaves to do the heavy lifting!
Click to expand...

Well not slaves but guys who knew how to do it. When the AE built the Giza pyramids they had many generations of experience in working and moving stone having built similar pyramids before, that expertise was later loss and never regained.
 
Argumemnon said:
One thing I always wondered: isn't there a way to slow down enough to avoid this effect while still landing?
Click to expand...

I'm not an engineer, but I do play Kerbal Space Program. So take this with a grain of salt. Apologies for my presumption.

Many (but not all) science fiction spacecraft have extremely high performance in order to pull off what the plot requires them to do. If your SF story had, for example, a ship able to pull 1 G of acceleration for a week, then it should be able to enter orbit above a planet, kill off most of its orbital velocity, and descend into the atmosphere at a fairly slow speed. That's science fiction.

In real life spacecraft tend to use all their fuel going out and coming back. They rely on aerobraking to kill that last bit of speed they have left. This means they compress the air in front of them, generate an enormous amount of heat, and need to be designed with that in mind.

However, that's still cheaper than carrying the fuel you'd need to slow down that much.
 
John Nowak said:
Also, not slaves. Mostly farmers out of work on a seasonal basis, working for food and beer.
Click to expand...

Yep the experts probably worked all year round (cutting and shaping stone) as evidenced by the worker village, in the time of flood the 'boys' would show up to move everything and do the heavy work. There may have also been some professionals who dragged rocks too but like Jay noted they were the 'trickle' to keep everything ship shape until the corvee came into affect again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom