posted March 01, 2010 08:28 PM         

quote:

---

Are you familiar with MythBusters? [URL=http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/07/20/dcl.myth.busters.moon.landing.cnn?iref=videosearch

---

I love that show!

posted March 02, 2010 12:31 AM         

I don't mention Obama at all on this forum except a couple of times in LL2 and also in GU. so i have no idea what you are on about.

posted March 02, 2010 01:09 AM         

America is the richest country IN THE WORLD!

posted March 02, 2010 05:08 AM         

On board systems for even Submarine Controls have been using 32 bit processors for over a decade and at best need 16 bit processors in parallel.

Processing for Space Calculations need accurate floating point accuracy. This is very difficult with the IBM 4Pi series processor used in Apollo 11. I wonder where all the floating point constants used in space flight calculations were stored. They said they used a 16 KB Tape Drive with a 11 second load time, and an auxiliary program of 8KB if there were failures. 8000 bytes of software to do all the calculations to go to the moon and come back? Why did not Bill Gates just buy Nasa software than write bloatware, That too for IBM, the company that paid Gates to create an OS? When IBM could make sophisticated space software in just 8000 bytes? I would love to see that source code, it can surely be declassified now?

Modern harddisks have trouble when lightning strikes, as the data quickly gets corrupted.
I wonder what shielding was done on these ancient data registers of IBM that survived all the space radiation without even one bit of the data registers or tape drive being corrupted.

I am not saying they did not go the Moon, but whatever they have said about the hardware and software architecture has to be
throughly investigated by Moon hoax researchers. The 11 second load time just does not cut it for sophisticated landing/take off/on board calculations when Gigabytes of Latest RAM Chips and 64 bit silicon processors are not preventing mistakes by NASA these days.

posted March 02, 2010 11:54 AM         

Don't you the think the russians whould be the first people to know if the moon landing was faked or not.

They were in a space race. I'm sure they whould be the first ones to know and be pi*sed that they were cheated.

But the counter to that argument is the fact that the russian felt it was to dangerous to send a man to the moon anyway.

The technolgy limatations matter a litte, but not to much to get a man to the moon.

I mean its like mac Pc's forget about the hardware and just build effient software.

Sorry but PC has way better hardware, but terrible software.

I mean its always software that ligures not hardware. Hardware will advance faster then software.

So they could do it.

for example, theres some systems that run on dos and people who still swear by it.

just because its effienct of course the hardware needed to run it is a joke.

Right now we have i7s and even i9s coming out soon. But the software doesn't even take full advantage of quad cores.

So forget about thinking about how important the hardware is its the software that matters to get to the moon.

quote:

---

Ok, maybe they used Windows Vista in the latest shuttles...

---

They whould never use vista, XP whould be the next bet. More likly linux since it can be built to suit there needs and all the other "garbage programs" running in the background could be killed.

quote:

---

The 11 second load time just does not cut it for sophisticated landing/take off/on board calculations when Gigabytes of Latest RAM Chips and 64 bit silicon processors are not preventing mistakes by NASA these days.

---

But thats involving remote space probes and landers, such as the Mars Lander. You need a computer to do that, since theres no "human inside controling the landing".

The diffrence is theres a "human inside controling" the moon lunar lander.

So all you need is a system to output all the controls to the pilot and a hotshot airforce pilot to do it. A lot of these guys were hotshot korea and vietnam airforce pilots.

posted March 02, 2010 12:52 PM         

I mean what would be the benefit to the government or to us?

posted March 02, 2010 01:02 PM         

It would still be very cool to see this 1969 NASA sourcecode. I remember it takes nearly 100 eight bit registers of Assembly Code on Intel 8085 just to create a bubble sort program. They were having just 16384 bytes.
Sophisticated algorithms for sorting and searching came in the 1970s. Even to process an analog signal, calculate and give an output to a hotshot pilot, you would need a 100000 bytes of compiled <math.h> code. Heck even FORTRAN Language compilers were unoptimized in those days. There was not even C Language for crying out loud.
Why did not these amazing software engineers beat Bill Gates to MSDOS in IBM, who bought and then created something pathetic 14 years later? And how did these guys test/debug this amazing software so fast?
Something is amiss about the computer software systems on Apollo 11.

And there is just no documentation about the shielding used for protecting the old memory registers and tapes from radiation. Radiation from 42 degrees sunlight can kill todays hardisks, as my company's battered 2006 computers will testify...

Another problem is the telemetry technology. We still cannot locate aeroplane blackboxes or sunken/lost ships properly in the 21st century, how did pinpoint accuracy become possible on a flight to the Moon in 1969? There were no Digital Signal Processing microchips either. It was Analog, and I dont see any documentation on Analog Devices accounting for tuning along with cosmic radiation, solar flares disrupting inductors and so on. The only advantage of analog devices is that an EMP cannot destroy them as easily as it can destroy digital transistors. [Edit: I would be happy if someone could clarify this, I am speaking from memory of what I learnt more than 14 years ago]

posted March 02, 2010 01:43 PM         

quote:

---

I was joking about Windows Vista. If a scientist insisted on Windows for a mission critical application, he would be fired.

---

How about the scientis that miscalculated metric and standard measurements with the Mars Polar Lander in 1999 he must been fired.
Just wanted to throught that in there to lightened up the mood.

lets assume that they didn't even use the math.h header file and any external libary files.

It helps for reusablity, but built there own purpuse built functions to handle any math operations. Hopefully not mantasia, that whould
require up to 32 bit to store each bit.

Besides it whould have been all assembly language code.

Lets not get started with fotran, fortran is a beast and isn't great with memory managment. Why whould they want to code in fortran.

If the control pannel was as in the movie Apollo 11 with just lights and dials, whould not all you need is less then a byte even 1 bit
for each. 1 for lights on and 0 for lights off.

Think about the systems they use in Apollo as the same "console" they use in street cars/tram cars such as in San Fransico, but one more step.

posted March 02, 2010 02:05 PM         

quote:

---

I mean what would be the benefit to the government or to us?

---

Actually the US government have very good reasons to perpetuate a myth like this (which it is not, but let's assume for a second that it is). First of all we were in the midst of an arms race with the Soviets. And not just actual weapons, but we had to show them that we could compete with their technology. When Russia sent up it's first satellite, Americans were scared stiff. If they could send up a satellite, that means they could SPY on us, or worse, attach weapons to it. So we had to compete by developing a space program and really we started racing with them to put a man on the moon. By getting there first, we showed the Russians that we had competent and even better technology.

posted March 02, 2010 02:11 PM         

either way could be faked and i for one have little faith in any vids i see on youtube. some are so choppy as to be blatantly photoshopped (or whatever the term is in video field) - spliced and diced. some are not so obvious but as in the "truther" videos trying to prove 9/11 hoax theories, the quality of the film is such that it would be very hard to prove it was TRUE footage and not just editted to prove a point...

in the 9/11 camp i DO believe it was an "inside" job, but i also believe planes were used in nyc and it was made to look like an outside hit. i remember watching it live on the air and SEEING an airliner fly into one of the towers...the second one. the fact that explosives had been laid for demolition ALSO and that tower 7 went down without being hit is bad enough. the other stuff is gratuitous garbage that actually puts people off the truth.

as for the moon, well i watched it at the time and as i recall tv technology was not really up to the kind of stunts the hoaxers talk about. because they are generally younger and don't remember how far we have come in the intervening time it may seem an easy job to fake, but in 69 we were not so savvy technologically...

posted March 02, 2010 04:47 PM         

They fooled EVERYONE, including the Russians.

But some 40 years later, when asked to produce the original footage, at a time when we would have the technology do decipher if some of the things they showed was real or fake, these footage became mysteriously lost or erased!!!! And about 700 boxes of material from the Apollo mission cannot be found!!

posted March 02, 2010 06:54 PM         

Man on moon may be a fraud.

Asteroids Rock!

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"