fleckneymike Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 Sorry but this comparison is not convincing in the slightest . The Americans were in the nursery of space exploration in 62 but managed to graduate with honours in 69 , but the Chinese are incapable of even equalling that in over 60 years ( if they achieve it by then) with all the benefits of standing on the shoulders of all the advancements made since then ? Does this not concern you in the slightest or even give you reason enough to understand why so many are suspicious ? The comparison is convincing but again you're blind to logic so fail to see it as such. The Americans from 62 onwards focussed on nothing but lunar exploration, every subsequent mission (the Gemini's) was devised to acquire the expertise and skills to reach the Moon (Apollo 6) and then land on it (Apollo 11). They also had direct competition from the Soviets, milestones were weeks apart many times i.e Gagarin and Shepard which forced the pace. China is establishing themselves as a global super power on many fronts. The Chinese are not focused solely on the moon.
Babylon Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 God this is like banging your head against a brick wall. So that's it then , they just got lucky in all the Apollo missions then? fair enough That's a bit like saying you're lucky every day of your life because you've not been struck by lightening yet. You're not lucky because you haven't been struck by lightening. You're unlucky if you are, because the odds are slim. Why should it matter what effects the VABs have if all that's reqired to pass through them is a suit designed in the 60's and an aluminium tin can ? The whole point of a study is to understand something better. They could find out that at a certain point every couple of years VAB skyrockets due to a certain cosmic event. Whilst it might not even be enough to do any damage to anyone or anything, you don't take the risk and launch your rocket at another time. We're talking billion dollar ventures, it's usually a good idea to be cautious. Like how they wait for perfect weather conditions on earth before a launch.
breadandcheese Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 I think the possibility that Iran is being prevented from developing a nuclear weapon might be a huge factor in this . And of course other countries , such as the seemingly slow on the uptake Russians and Chinese have managed it . Even accounting for prevention. Let's be honest, it was not as if North Korea wasn't being prevented and they managed it. Talking of the Chinese. Why have they only just managed to conduct their first manned spacecraft docking? The Russians and Americans did this decades ago. Why has it only taken until now for today's technologically advanced China to do it? Is it because it takes time to engineer and learn how to do it? Another example. If our government decide to build some new nuclear powerplants, all the engineers, designers and manufacturers will be non-British. It is simply impossible for Britain today to build its own nuclear powerplants, despite having done so decades ago. This is because all the engineers with the knowledge of how to build them retired years ago (or are now dead), as they were doing their job in the 1950s and 1960s. Today's nuclear plants have moved on and we do not, as a country, possess the knowledge base of how to build them. We would have to either start from scratch (which would take years to train the right people, create designs and learn how to do it), or get foreign firms with the knowledge to do the job.
AdamN Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 Sorry but this comparison is not convincing in the slightest . The Americans were in the nursery of space exploration in 62 but managed to graduate with honours in 69 , but the Chinese are incapable of even equalling that in over 60 years ( if they achieve it by then) with all the benefits of standing on the shoulders of all the advancements made since then ? Does this not concern you in the slightest or even give you reason enough to understand why so many are suspicious ? Perhaps China are just a bit shit? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6FNw_UeJJQ
Rincewind Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 The Americans are probably having to teach the Chinese about rockets and they will want to keep some of their best experts for their own space programms. There is not enough to go around. They don't teach rocket science in schools much nowadays.
Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 The Americans are probably having to teach the Chinese about rockets and they will want to keep some of their best experts for their own space programms. There is not enough to go around. They don't teach rocket science in schools much nowadays. The Americans knew fook all about rockets , they nicked them from Peenemunde . The comparison is convincing but again you're blind to logic so fail to see it as such. The Americans from 62 onwards focussed on nothing but lunar exploration, every subsequent mission (the Gemini's) was devised to acquire the expertise and skills to reach the Moon (Apollo 6) and then land on it (Apollo 11). They also had direct competition from the Soviets, milestones were weeks apart many times i.e Gagarin and Shepard which forced the pace. China is establishing themselves as a global super power on many fronts. The Chinese are not focused solely on the moon. OK you win , the yanks weren't doing anything else between 62 and 69 and every manjack of 'em was working on going to the moon whereas the Chinese are too busy busy on lots of other stuff . Hmm It's like the old argument that a cat can be made to pull a fully laden cart if you whip it hard enough. That's the clincher for me for today
marty78 Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 Why should it matter what effects the VABs have if all that's reqired to pass through them is a suit designed in the 60's and an aluminium tin can ? To help our understanding of Plasma and high energy particles
Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 To help our understanding of Plasma and high energy particles So it's nothing to do with the dangers of transit then?
Captain... Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 Other have used the nuclear analogy in this thread rather well, Same applies here. It took America 5 years to build a nuclear bomb nearly seventy years ago. It is taking Iran nearly 20 years today and they've still not achieved it. Even factoring in sanctions, it still proves the point. The funding issue is a problem. At a time of intense funding constraints for all governments, programmes get cut. Space exploration is an easy one to cut. America now have no space shuttle programme. They also use Russian spaceships. Funding is an issue. But the technology to build nuclear bombs is widely known, and having built one nuclear bomb, it would take the US less time to build another, what I find bizarre is that we seem to have lost the technology to return to the moon.
Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 But the technology to build nuclear bombs is widely known, and having built one nuclear bomb, it would take the US less time to build another, what I find bizarre is that we seem to have lost the technology to return to the moon. This is the point that i find quite amazing , and the readiness of so many to accept it with just a shrug .
Leicester_Numan Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 They could put the whole real/fake thing to bed by zooming one of the space telescopes in on the landing site where they left the buggy from a later landing. Or try and zoom in on the flag from the original site. Easy to do and you have to ask why it hasn't been done if they were real landings
Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 I'm getting very concerned about the length of time "Apollo" is spending in this thread without posting .
fleckneymike Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 They could put the whole real/fake thing to bed by zooming one of the space telescopes in on the landing site where they left the buggy from a later landing. Or try and zoom in on the flag from the original site. Easy to do and you have to ask why it hasn't been done if they were real landings Erm. Do you not keep up with the news? Just this week we had pictures of those very things.
fleckneymike Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 This is the point that i find quite amazing , and the readiness of so many to accept it with just a shrug . But we haven't lost the technology to return to the moon, we just wont be using the same technology if we are to return to the moon.
Captain... Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 Erm. Do you not keep up with the news? Just this week we had pictures of those very things. That is what kick started this topic, it is a very grainy picture that neither proves one thing or the other clearly, and has served only to fuel the conspiracy theories, almost as if on purpose.
breadandcheese Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 But the technology to build nuclear bombs is widely known, and having built one nuclear bomb, it would take the US less time to build another, what I find bizarre is that we seem to have lost the technology to return to the moon. See my later example about us here in the UK building nuclear power stations. We are now unable to do this independently as we no longer have the knowledgebase.
marty78 Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 So it's nothing to do with the dangers of transit then? To some extent of course but not just for humans but also the electronics of satellites and spacecraft. Plasma makes up 99% of the Universe so believe it or not it interests physicists and astronomers more than sticking a flag in the moon.
Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 But we haven't lost the technology to return to the moon, we just wont be using the same technology if we are to return to the moon. Why not ? it seemed pretty good , they all got back alive didn't they ? if they're not going to use that technology why not give it to the Chinese ?
fleckneymike Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 That is what kick started this topic, it is a very grainy picture that neither proves one thing or the other clearly, and has served only to fuel the conspiracy theories, almost as if on purpose. No it hasn't. Conspiracy theorists have decided that they need to invent new conspiracies to explain away the photo's on the landing sites, foot prints and rover tracks.
Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 See my later example about us here in the UK building nuclear power stations. We are now unable to do this independently as we no longer have the knowledgebase. Are you really saying that we don't have scientific records of all this in universities scientific institutes and libraries all around the country . Are you really saying we'd have to start again from scratch ? sorry that's not very likely
Babylon Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 Why not ? it seemed pretty good , they all got back alive didn't they ? For the same reason why you aren't tapping away on a spectrum computer right now.
Captain... Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 For the same reason why you aren't tapping away on a spectrum computer right now. Are there better available now then?
Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 For the same reason why you aren't tapping away on a spectrum computer right now. yes but we didn't throw all the spectrums away until they were actually replaced with better
fleckneymike Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 Why not ? it seemed pretty good , they all got back alive didn't they ? if they're not going to use that technology why not give it to the Chinese ? If we are ever to return to the moon I imagine we will want to establish some sort of lunar base. The Apollo mission was not designed for this purpose, indeed moving large objects into space is prohibitively expensive and is why the US created the shuttle. I we want to return and play some more golf then yes we could rebuild the Saturn V and the other associated parts. The reason the US don't simply hand over their plans to the Chinese is because why would they hand over their plans and designs to one of their main economic rivals? I am still waiting for someone to explain why we cannot travel through the VAB.
Captain... Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 yes but we didn't throw all the spectrums away until they were actually replaced with better Although, the original designs probably wouldn't be compatible with modern technology, but they still shouldn't need to start from scratch.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.