Coffee 3:20 Tue Aug 23
Apollo 11
|
|
I've never tired of watching coverage of the Apollo 11 mission. It continues to instill excitement and wonder.
I was just a nipper at the time, but old enough to know what was going on and share in the excitement that seemed to engulf the world. Suddenly, everything was possible and everywhere was within reach. There was optimism, even if there was also a profoundly dumb war being fought in Vietnam, and freedom despite the deep freeze of the Cold War.
The sound of the countdown, the billowing kerosene and liquid oxygen flames amid an almighty boom; the rocket staying still as if defying all attempts to get it to fly, the flames and great plumes of steam being sucked into the base of the launch pad. Then the rocket crawling slowly before climbing, turning and accelerating towards space. A couple of minutes later the earth's curvature is seen and four or five days later it lands on the moon. The whole thing still has the power to amaze more than 50 years on.
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
What are your memories and thoughts of that time?
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Coffee
9:13 Sat Sep 3
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
They're going to try to launch Artemis again today. Two-hour window for blast off starting at 1917.
|
dm
4:52 Mon Aug 29
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Mike Oxsaw
Apollo 12 landed near one of the unmanned Surveyer craft that landed in 1967.
A camera was removed from the Surveyer and returned back to Earth. When the camera was examined it was found to have Earthly bacteria inside which was understood to have contaminated the camera before launch and survived the journey to the Moon and back, as well as two years on the Moon. However this has been challenged I'm recent years with an alternative explanation that the camera became contaminated when it arrived back in Earth.
|
Mike Oxsaw
4:29 Mon Aug 29
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
The launch mimics our transfer process this window.
How very West Ham of them.
|
El Scorchio
3:37 Mon Aug 29
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Looks like it’s going to be delayed. Shame.
|
El Scorchio
3:15 Mon Aug 29
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
I read 1333 UK time is the aim but as you say- technical issues! Annoying as I’ve got to go out at 2 and I’d quite like to see a little bit of history before I do.
|
Coffee
2:33 Mon Aug 29
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Scorch
I think I read that there's a two-hour window for launch starting at 1300 BST? (Might have remembered that wrong...) One or two technical issues as they prepare.
Unrelated, two Air France pilots have been suspended for having a punch-up in the flight deck of a flight from Geneva to Paris in June. Cockpit, eh.
|
El Scorchio
1:21 Mon Aug 29
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Artemis 1 launches 1330 today.
|
Mike Oxsaw
12:23 Fri Aug 26
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Far Cough 11:10 Thu Aug 25
OK - I've found the link, accessed it and read the quote mentioned.
Is that quote total bollocks because it is posted on a fruit-loop website, or total bollocks because Wernher von Braun wrote it?
|
Mike Oxsaw
12:09 Fri Aug 26
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Far Cough 11:12 Thu Aug 25
While you're gone, give Newton's laws a quick revision.
This is 100% NOT rocket science - it is 100% apples falling from trees science - ALL of it.
|
Far Cough
11:12 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Dealing with two thick cunts is enough for me, I'm off
|
Far Cough
11:10 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Auntie Thermite 6:15 Thu Aug 25
Science fiction is fun... in theory
"You all stupids if you don't parrot the official narrative"
Wagging the Moondoggie
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
There you dull cunt, open the link and it starts with:
WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE: PART I
|
Mike Oxsaw
11:02 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Far Cough 10:49 Thu Aug 25
I've had a scan back through the thread and can't find any links that "that other thick cunt" has posted up.
In fact, all he says - repeatedly - is typical conspiracy theory nonsense on the subject, viz:"it never happened". Nothing about how it happened (or didn't).
They didn't stop at a Little Chef though. I do remember that.
|
gph
11:01 Thu Aug 25
Re: Apollo 11
|
The official narrative is trying to breathe underwater is bad for you.
I'm quite happy to parrot it.
Goldie probably thinks (((they))) are trying to stop us making contact with a submerged Aryan Atlantis.
|
Far Cough
10:49 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
You stupid cunt, I was quoting what that other thick cunt Thermite had posted in the form of a link
|
Mike Oxsaw
10:45 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon..."
Not mentioned before that point.
In any case, what was too complex for NASA in the 1960s and the days before Sinclair digital watches is now not too complex in the 21st Century - plenty of successful launches to the ISS have taken place, including ones to push it back into a higher orbit; no reason why rendezvous with craft further out cannot happen.
|
Far Cough
10:16 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Who introduced it to the thread then?
It's not irrelevant as direct ascent was one of three options open to NASA, it was of course discarded because of the complexity involved
|
Mike Oxsaw
10:11 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Far Cough 9:58 Thu Aug 25
Whoever introduced to this thread flying DIRECTLY to the moon from the Earth - an irrelevancy.
|
Far Cough
9:58 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Mike Oxsaw 9:03 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
Who are you replying to?
|
Mike Oxsaw
9:03 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Who said anything about flying DIRECTLY to the moon?
Do you consider yourself THE expert on the subject because a giant fly took you to "Mad John", who explained all things lunar to you? Deep joy in your hop'n'dangly, if so.
They could easily put up a string of what are, effectively "Gas Stations & water tanks", either in orbit or between the Earth & moon, at which a ship on the way to & from the moon could replenish it's supplies, meaning that more payload could go up on the manned launch.
In fact, a shuttle (not THE Shuttle) could effectively rattle between (one of) these way-stations & the moon, never, ever, needing to return to earth after it's initial launch or construction in space.
Trouble is, gas stations, water tanks & shuttle buses are not sexy enough to get state funding for, so the photogenic approach of a Hollywood style project was conceived.
|
Chigwell
8:28 Thu Aug 25
Re: Apollo 11
|
I was 16 and remember very well watching the landing on our 21" black and white TV. In those days I had no trouble staying awake until 3 in the morning.
|
Far Cough
7:51 Thu Aug 25
Re: Science fiction is fun... in theory
|
Quote:
“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”—Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon
Von Braun is correct, a direct ascent would be economically (in terms of fuel and weight) unfeasible but I've explained this to you before you thick cunt, they didn't use the direct ascent approach, they used the Lunar orbit rendezvous, whereas the lunar lander and ascent stage are discarded before return to earth, instead of carrying dead weight both there and back.
|
| 
