Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[likelystory]

Illuminati HITman. He was a hired assassin.
That's why the aliens had him killed. He was going to go to the moon on Apollo 27 and kill the Martian ambassador.

Yeah maybe JFK was like Rasputin drinking the wine. Planned his own death.

 

[Justinian2]

No the insult is that you are denegrating a programme and engineering feat that you know nothing about, that's insulting.

You are writing garbage, you really have Zero knowledge of how the LM worked. Stop making stuff up and go and learn about it, there is a lot of material out there and it's all very interesting.

Here's a starting point.

Your link validated what I was recalling from memory. I suggested that the computer had about 1000 bytes of memory. In actuality, it had 2048. From your Wikipedia link:

The computer had 2048 words of erasable magnetic core memory and 36 kilowords of read-only core rope memory. Both had cycle times of 11.72 micro-seconds. The memory word length was 16 bits: 15 bits of data and 1 odd-parity bit. The CPU-internal 16-bit word format was 14 bits of data, 1 overflow bit, and 1 sign bit (ones' complement representation).

11.72 microseconds is a very low cycle time.

By the way, it is NOT making things up to use memory, education and experience. Perhaps if you had more of those things you would appreciate them more.

 

[MG1962]

I'm not going to look this up because, with todays' technology, it should be possible to land with retro rockets. My point was only that the first retro rocket landing on Mars failed - even with today's advanced technology.

See you claim to want to apply a skeptical approach, but dont even bother to find out what went wrong. It certainly was not the technology that failed, but actually human error

 

[JimBenArm]

Ahem. A "word" is not the same as a "byte".
A "word" is two bytes.

So the answer is...?

And while you're trying to do the complex math to figure this out, how many nibbles would this be?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why would JFK ask NASA? Was JFK an Illuminati frontman?

I suggest you actually study some history.

NASA was formed in 1958 by merging NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) with JPL (Jet Propulsion Labs) and several other groups. At the time NACA was working on the Manned Satelite program which became Project Mercury under NASA. NACA were looking at what they would do in the future just before Esienhower decided to make them into NASA, and it was after they were reformed that the answer come back, one of two choices.

1) Establish a space station by the end of 1970
2) Reach the moon by the end of 1970

NASA decided that they wanted to go for the moon because they felt the Soviets had the superior lifting capablities (ironically the Soviet's cruder nuclear weapons were far heavier than the US's meaning they had to have bigger ICBMs to carry them, and thus greater lifting power than the US in 1958 givinbg the Soveits an early advantage) and so could get a station in space first. Going to the moon would involve rockets beyond both sides capabilities, but the US already had a family of rockets theoretically capable of it on the drawing board, Von Braun's Saturns, which he had designed while working at the ABMA and has offered to NASA.

From 1958 to 1960 NASA worked on a manned lunar mission plan to follow Mercury and gave it to Esienhower at the begining of 1960. He approved both it and the Saturn Rocket and in July of 1960 NASA publically announced that the next program after Mercury would be Project Apollo and that it would be a series of lunar orbits and returns by 1970 with a landing sometime in the early to mid 1970's.

Kennedy then beat Nixon and became President in the 1960 elections, immediately shelfing the Programme when he took up office.

However, after the Bay of Pigs failure, Kennedy was looking for something to win back support and one up the Soviets. Johnson was head of the Space Commitee and knew that NASA was wanting to revie its programs, especially with Mercury about to get underway. Kennedy saw an opportunity and called in the top brass from NASA and basically asked if they could do it and if so, when? They replied that their studies indicated yes, and by 1970. He took them at their word, and backed the programme.

This is why he asked them.

 

[matt.tansy]

That's an insult. Just because I state my claim without source doesn't mean that I haven't previously set forth the reasons for my claim, or that I can't defend the claim.

Then defend your claim and answer my question: how many bytes were required to land on the Moon. Until you can provide a numerical answer then the reason for your claim and your educated guess is worthless.

Did you imagine what would happen when you threw out that idiotic claim? Of course you didn't. Because the claim fit perfectly into your conspiracy mindset. You read it and your brain immediately stopped working. You didn't ask yourself, "I wonder if that is true?".

 

[matt.tansy]

dupe

 

[matt.tansy]

In English, please.

He's referring to the post-landing press conference. For some reason the HBs think the crew should have been jumping up and down and acting all excited instead of acting like the calm, cool, and collected test pilots they were.

He's just parroting what his HB documentaries tell him to.

 

[Justinian2]

You seem to think that the crew just jumped in the thing and went. This is far from the truth, they spent hours and hours and hours flying simulators to get a feel for how the controls worked and what they had to do. The Commanders also got to fly the LLTV which we're already discussed. Just because you and your friends couldn't do it first time, the pilots were vetern fighter and test pilots with hundreds of hours of experience flying, you aren't.

You also don't seem to understand the way the LM worked either. P66, the manual program wasn't entirely manual. In fact the AGC was the first fly-by-wire computer. The computer still did the flying, when you were in P66, the hand controller just told the computer where to go.

It worked something like this....

The inputs from the gimbles and radar would be entered into the computer. It would then determine the LM's current state compared to its desired state. If these were too out of line, it would push the LM back towards the desired state.

Let's say that it's desired start is 0 +/- 1 so in the range -1 to +1.

Currently the inputs are at -5.

The AGC now knows that it has to push towards Zero, so it applies a +3

Now the inputs tell us that the current state is -2

The AGC now knows that it has to push towards Zero, so it applies a +3

Now the inputs tell us that the current state is +1

Now let's add the controller I want the state to go higher so I push the controller up. If I just make the state higher, I start to fight the computer, so instead I trick the computer by subtracting 5

Now the inputs tell the AGB that the current state is -4

The AGC now knows that it has to push towards Zero, so it applies a +3

Now the inputs tell the AGB that the current state is -1

When I release the controller, the inputs remove that -5

Now the inputs tell the AGB that the current state is +4

The AGC now knows that it has to push towards Zero, so it applies a +3

Now the inputs tell the AGB that the current state is +1.

The computer does the work, the controller just points it in the right direction.

So the LM was a mix of Computer and exceedingly well trained pilot. There was no reason they couldn't land them, that's what they had been trained to do.

I haven't disagreed with that statement. I am just skeptical that all went off so well.

Take the LLRVs, for example. They simulated 1/6 gravity with a turbo fan that provided 5/6ths of the thrust. That is NOT the same simulation as flying on the moon because the full mass is still there. The inertia of a large mass is still to be overcome by the small thrust rockets. Not only that, but look at the LLRV. The inertial characteristics are going to be MUCH different.

I am skeptical that a person could make the instantaineously adapt his experience with the LLRV to handling the lunar lander.

 

[JimBenArm]

I haven't disagreed with that statement. I am just skeptical that all went off so well.

Take the LLRVs, for example. They simulated 1/6 gravity with a turbo fan that provided 5/6ths of the thrust. That is NOT the same simulation as flying on the moon because the full mass is still there. The inertia of a large mass is still to be overcome by the small thrust rockets. Not only that, but look at the LLRV. The inertial characteristics are going to be MUCH different.

I am skeptical that a person could make the instantaineously adapt his experience with the LLRV to handling the lunar lander.

I am skeptical that you have the requisite knowledge to make it matter that you're skeptical.

Or even that you know what "skeptical" means.

Or what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[MG1962]

I am skeptical that a person could make the instantaineously adapt his experience with the LLRV to handling the lunar lander.

You just dont get it. Armstrong WAS that good. He proved it in Korea, and again proved it during the Gemini 8 mission.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Your link validated what I was recalling from memory. I suggested that the computer had about 1000 bytes of memory. In actuality, it had 2048. From your Wikipedia link:

No it says 2048 words. In the AGC a word is 16 bits, or 2 bytes, so that is 4096 bytes, or 4 kilobytes. That 4x as much as you claimed.

11.72 microseconds is a very low cycle time.

Not at all if you understand why. Besides this is memory cycling, not processor clock cycles.

By the way, it is NOT making things up to use memory, education and experience.

When your memort is faulty, your education is clearly lacking, and you have no experience, yes it is.

Perhaps if you had more of those things you would appreciate them more.

I would happily bet that I know FAR more about Apollo and the world around us that you ever will. From your posting here it is painfully clear that you have no idea what you are on about. Insteadof acting like a prima donna, you should actually read what people are saying to you, and learn. Apollo is a marvel when you start getting into it, and the depth of documentation and detail is astounding. For those willing to learn, there is a lot to find out, and you have hardly even scratched the wrapping paper.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I haven't disagreed with that statement. I am just skeptical that all went off so well.

Take the LLRVs, for example. They simulated 1/6 gravity with a turbo fan that provided 5/6ths of the thrust. That is NOT the same simulation as flying on the moon because the full mass is still there. The inertia of a large mass is still to be overcome by the small thrust rockets. Not only that, but look at the LLRV. The inertial characteristics are going to be MUCH different.

I am skeptical that a person could make the instantaineously adapt his experience with the LLRV to handling the lunar lander.

You seem to be assuming that the LLRV was his entire training. It was a PART of his training. It was to give the Commanders a feel for the craft, not to provide a perfect simulation of what the LM felt like.

On top of the time they had on the LLRV/LLTV, they had hours and hours, and hours, running senarios in both the CSM and the LM simulators. Thay were already test pilots, they were used to getting into an unknown craft and flying it. And on top of that, the Astronauts all helped out in the design and building of the craft, so they knew them intimately. They also talked to previous astronauts that had flown them, remember that by the time 11 landed, there'd already been 2 other LM flights.

Why should people who are used to getting in totally strange aircraft and flying them, have any serious trouble with one that they helped design, had hundreds of hours practicing flying in a simulator, and had flown something that had a similar feel to it?

 

[Justinian2]

No it says 2048 words. In the AGC a word is 16 bits, or 2 bytes, so that is 4096 bytes, or 4 kilobytes. That 4x as much as you claimed.

You are trolling. Ever heard of order of magnitude?

Not at all if you understand why. Besides this is memory cycling, not processor clock cycles.

You are trolling. This is slow by today's standards is it not?

When your memort is faulty, your education is clearly lacking, and you have no experience, yes it is.

May the lack be with you.

I would happily bet that I know FAR more about Apollo and the world around us that you ever will. From your posting here it is painfully clear that you have no idea what you are on about. Insteadof acting like a prima donna, you should actually read what people are saying to you, and learn. Apollo is a marvel when you start getting into it, and the depth of documentation and detail is astounding. For those willing to learn, there is a lot to find out, and you have hardly even scratched the wrapping paper.

How much will you bet?

 

[PhantomWolf]

You are trolling. Ever heard of order of magnitude?

No trolling is this.

Officer: Did you know that you were going 80mph in a 20mph zone?

Diver: What's does it the matter? Haven't you hear of an order of magnitude?

You are trolling. This is slow by today's standards is it not?

Why compare it with today's standards? Compare it with the job it was required to do, that is the one and only comparison that matters.

How much will you bet?

Since I doubt you'd pay up anything higher, $50 would be easy money.

 

[Justinian2]

No trolling is this.

Officer: Did you know that you were going 80mph in a 20mph zone?

Diver: What's does it the matter? Haven't you hear of an order of magnitude?

Why compare it with today's standards? Compare it with the job it was required to do, that is the one and only comparison that matters.

Since I doubt you'd pay up anything higher, $50 would be easy money.

Back in that era, each bit of memory was a ferrite bead with three thin wires that went through the middle. A byte is usually eight bits - eight ferrite beads each of which is about 1/16th of an inch in diameter. A 1000 byte memory took up quite a bit of space and had significant weight.

Now my PC has 8 gigabytes of memory (eight billion bytes). That is eight million times more memory than a 1000 byte memory.

I would estimate that toys today have far more memory than a lunar lander.

Did I say the lunar lander computer had 1000 bytes?

NO! I was talking about 1000 byte memories. No mention of lunar lander, only a hypothetical computer.

Why? Because I knew it was the approximate order of magnitude and didn't care to look it up.

Why discuss the approximate size of the memory?
Because it puts things in perspective with today's computers. Some younger people aren't familar with the era.

Now that you've flamed over something you only thought I said, you can send me my $50.

 

[twinstead]

Wow. Misplaced arrogance ROCKS!

 

[Justinian2]

You seem to be assuming that the LLRV was his entire training. It was a PART of his training. It was to give the Commanders a feel for the craft, not to provide a perfect simulation of what the LM felt like.

On top of the time they had on the LLRV/LLTV, they had hours and hours, and hours, running senarios in both the CSM and the LM simulators. Thay were already test pilots, they were used to getting into an unknown craft and flying it. And on top of that, the Astronauts all helped out in the design and building of the craft, so they knew them intimately. They also talked to previous astronauts that had flown them, remember that by the time 11 landed, there'd already been 2 other LM flights.

Why should people who are used to getting in totally strange aircraft and flying them, have any serious trouble with one that they helped design, had hundreds of hours practicing flying in a simulator, and had flown something that had a similar feel to it?

I haven't disagreed with that statement. I am just skeptical that all went off so well.

Take the LLRVs, for example. They simulated 1/6 gravity with a turbo fan that provided 5/6ths of the thrust. That is NOT the same simulation as flying on the moon because the full mass is still there. The inertia of a large mass is still to be overcome by the small thrust rockets. Not only that, but look at the LLRV. The inertial characteristics are going to be MUCH different.

I am skeptical that a person could make the instantaineously adapt his experience with the LLRV to handling the lunar lander.

skep·ti·cal (US) or Brit scep·ti·cal
Pronounced:
/ˈskɛptɪkəl/
Function:
adjective
Meaning:
[more skep*ti*cal; most skep*ti*cal] : having or expressing doubt about something (such as a claim or statement)

 

[Sledge]

And yet they did. Therefore, your skepticism is misplaced. Being skeptical is more than just going "Well, I don't think that could have happened." It's about evaluating evidence. You've provided none for your "theory," so you lose. Good day, sir.

 

[R.A.F.]

I am skeptical that a person could make the instantaineously adapt his experience with the LLRV to handling the lunar lander.

It is irrelevant what you are "skeptical" about. You have demonstrated no qualifications or experience to "back up" your opinion.

All the astronauts were highly skilled test pilots, which is why they were selected to be astronauts.

Justinian...read something besides ignorant hoax believer sites...you might learn something.