Nice shot

[CNCAppsJames]

Kids today just cannot fathom how engineering was done BITD. But they've spent their whole lives being indoctrinated how terrible things were and how we have to go away from the old ways. 

I think we need to aim for REAL intelligence instead of this artificial shit they are tying to ram down our throats. That's not to say we shouldn't offload some of the mundane stuff to computers, software, etc... trust me, I would not be able to do what I do if it were not for Excel, CAD/CAM/CAE, etc... I'm not smart enough to do it the old way... pencil, paper and a calculator. 

The difference between the old guys and the young guns of today, old guys recognize that that they may  personally have limitations and gaps in their exertise and that Google/AI isn't going to solve every problem they encounter so they are actually going to have to LEARN... the old fashioned way. Kids today don't accept that.

 

[Newbeeee™]

What I can't get my head around is that in the Apollo missions that allegedly went to the moon they did this with 1 rocket. Fast forward to 2025 and it will take no less than 11 or 12 rockets to accomplish the same feat (the new Starship is the most powerful rocket ever built from what I have read).

Not to mention how the Apollo missions survived the Van Allen radiation belt.

10/10 for teh critical thinking....
(it's cus they never went....)

[Newbeeee™]

As did the exposed film they brought back! If you accidentally send film through a momentary x-ray scanner at airport security, it's useless. Also the eyewitness interviews of people that worked at the soundstages, and then saw their handiwork on TV during the missions? I'm not a flat earther, nor am I in the "all space is fake" camp that dissects each video from the ISS claiming to find flaws, but I have issues with the moon missions.

Back in the 60s, it was pretty easy to fool people - TVs were small and trust in institutions was EXTREMELY high. Especially if you were trying to beat the Reds at something.

So 12 launches minimum to reach the moon? I have not heard that before. Wild.

Film.... if you search the NASA archives, you'll see the highest shuttle mission which by memory was 600km (less than 400 miles).
:snort:
This isn't much higher than the usual 250 miles orbit BUT there was so much more safety needed at certain points, the crew had to all gather at a certain point in the craft as the areas were thicker which gave better shielding.
Also the film test was its own project - leaving rolls in different places and in the cab the film was unusable - peppered with holes.
Yet <400 miles compared to 250000.... and 1.5mm thick aluminium. LETS GO!
Not....

[Newbeeee™]

No actual rockets to complete the mission. They need to have a Starship fuel tanker in orbit, then it will take approximately 10 starship launches to fill the tanker. This is assuming they can transfer cryogenic fuel in space as this has never been done before. This is on top of the NASA Artemis rocket that is carrying the crew.

This was Werner teh Nazis original plan. His presentation film used to be on youtube showing the lift off and refuel in orbit.
Apparently it was THEE best technical solution but deemed too high risk for fuel and explosions and the powers that be decided to then fake it as there was only something like a 25% estimated success rate and the powers overruled him (and he was head of NASA) as they couldn't risk the bad press of astronaut deaths = bad PR.

[Newbeeee™]

The belt has a narrow area, that's the spot they target travel through.

This, is apparently totally BS.
There is a "narrower region" but it is volatile AF and always moving.
So they target it today, but it won't be the same tomorrow....

[CNCAppsJames]

What about MuH RaYdeeAYsHun BeLt?

Is the BS excuse people that people use because a piece of garbage that peddled lies entertained people for a living and probably diddled kids talked some smack in the 70's.

The SR-71... I suppose that airplane was made up too. We haven't built a production aircraft that is faster to date. It was designed in the late 1950's and early 1960's. We don't question that and the feats it accomplished feats that stand to this day.

[Brian]

Now that we're indulging our favorite conspiracy theories (re vaccines, the moon landing, who *really* killed JFK/Jimmy Hoffa, etc., etc), how do folks here feel about fluoridation?

[Newbeeee™]

Now that we're indulging our favorite conspiracy theories (re vaccines, the moon landing, who *really* killed JFK/Jimmy Hoffa, etc., etc), how do folks here feel about fluoridation?

The shitish Gov approve it. Massively. As much as possible.
EU nope.
Oooohhhh, the sweet taste of the chemical fertiliser byproduct. Mmmmm....

[CNCAppsJames]

Now that we're indulging our favorite conspiracy theories (re vaccines, the moon landing, who *really* killed JFK/Jimmy Hoffa, etc., etc), how do folks here feel about fluoridation?

I feel like there's only so many hours a day that is a healthy use of the conspiracy  muscle... and some people exceed it... like everyday.

I just think we're all gonna die.

On a serious note... on vaccines... I think "normal " human behavior is in play more than anything else... if 1 of something is good, 20+ must be awesome.  So, companies are more than happy to give us what we want. And governments are all too happy to oblige our hubris... and all for our own good of course.

The hubris is of course that we humans can concoct something, and that we can inject those things willy nilly into our bodies and never suffer any ill effects. That's not to say every reccommended injection is bad, but only to say not every reccommended injection is good.

Flouride... good for teeth surfaces, not so good for ingesting. It should be scrutinized more. Do the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks? 

Oh... and we're ALL gonna die. 
 

[SuperHoneyBadger]

Is the BS excuse people that people use because a piece of garbage that peddled lies entertained people for a living and probably diddled kids talked some smack in the 70's.

Can you elaborate on this?
I'm not sure who you're referencing, and I am unfamiliar with the origins of this particular criticism (the Van Allen belt). As I have only seen so many moons, my research and consumption of moon landing skepticism started ~2005, when I was 15 or so.

Very curious to know about historical reasons why/how people would have started to discredit NASA.

[CNCAppsJames]

Can you elaborate on this?
I'm not sure who you're referencing, and I am unfamiliar with the origins of this particular criticism (the Van Allen belt). As I have only seen so many moons, my research and consumption of moon landing skepticism started ~2005, when I was 15 or so.

Very curious to know about historical reasons why/how people would have started to discredit NASA.

A Hollywood producer in the 1970's (IIRC) Stanley Kubrik claimed either that he did, or could have faked the moon landing on a Hollywood Soundstage thus discrediting NASA.

Because light in space behaves differently than it does here on earth, NASA faked the moon landing.

Because the cameras used Servo motor mounts to follow where the LEM would be, NASA faked the moon landing. Because people cannot see stars in the images, NASA faked the moon landing.

Because we haven't gone back, NASA faked the moon landing.

Because the tribal knowledge used to build the Saturn V rocket and the F1 Rocket Motors has been lost, NASA faked the moon landing.

Because many of the drawings used to design the Saturn V Rocket have been lost or are in unknown archives, NASA faked the moon landing.

I could go on and on, ad nauseum.

NASA has done a few things over the years to bring discredit to themselves not for the veracity of the Moon Landing, but for their climatology models. So, people said they are lying about X, ergo they lied about the moon landing.

Because lunar exploration is HARD today, they believe it was impossible back then. People today have h no problem mistaking hubris for intelligence or technical prowess. I mean if Electric Jesus fails so much, how on earth did they do it back then with a fraction of the computing power?

Oh, I dunno... why haven't we built the SR-71's successor?

[kccadcam]

Oh, I dunno... why haven't we built the SR-71's successor?

We are,,, and more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72

[SuperHoneyBadger]

Because lunar exploration is HARD today, they believe it was impossible back then. People today have h no problem mistaking hubris for intelligence or technical prowess. I mean if Electric Jesus fails so much, how on earth did they do it back then with a fraction of the computing power?

Did some reading about the software update process for the Voyager I probe in 2024, and that blew my mind from a hardware/software point of view. I'm totally on board with the idea that a simpler form of electronics would be able to pull off advanced missions.

And honestly, I have not delved into the conspiratorial waters in some time, but I HAVE let those early experiences/findings shape my worldview into "well that's obviously BS because of what I read/heard 10 years ago, goddamn reserve banking Bilderbergers and the IMF are clearly responsible... etc". James, your salience and viewpoint in general has made me rethink a few of my positions in the past, and this might be another. I'm going to have to have a think and do some more research, and maybe think about why I was a skeptic in the first place. With the new missions coming up, I want to be more prepared to defend my positions.

[mowens]

This is a cool place to visit, if you are ever in Hutchinson, Ks.

https://cosmo.org/explore/attractions/hall-of-space-museum/

[mkd]

A Hollywood producer in the 1970's (IIRC) Stanley Kubrik claimed either that he did, or could have faked the moon landing on a Hollywood Soundstage thus discrediting NASA.

Because light in space behaves differently than it does here on earth, NASA faked the moon landing.

Because the cameras used Servo motor mounts to follow where the LEM would be, NASA faked the moon landing. Because people cannot see stars in the images, NASA faked the moon landing.

Because we haven't gone back, NASA faked the moon landing.

Because the tribal knowledge used to build the Saturn V rocket and the F1 Rocket Motors has been lost, NASA faked the moon landing.

Because many of the drawings used to design the Saturn V Rocket have been lost or are in unknown archives, NASA faked the moon landing.

I could go on and on, ad nauseum.

NASA has done a few things over the years to bring discredit to themselves not for the veracity of the Moon Landing, but for their climatology models. So, people said they are lying about X, ergo they lied about the moon landing.

Because lunar exploration is HARD today, they believe it was impossible back then. People today have h no problem mistaking hubris for intelligence or technical prowess. I mean if Electric Jesus fails so much, how on earth did they do it back then with a fraction of the computing power?

Oh, I dunno... why haven't we built the SR-71's successor?

Exactly!!!!