|Pete B - Moderator||21/07/2019 13:49:32|
7586 forum posts
Indeed, let's keep it that way, folks....
|Gary Manuel||21/07/2019 14:07:40|
1951 forum posts
I personally think that the lunar landings were man's greatest achievement for the very reason that JFK quoted as the reason for going there - because it was so damned difficult with the technology that wasn't even available at the time. We didn't even own a television at the time so spent the night at my uncle's house so we could watch it happening. I look back at those years with immense pride at what humans can achieve when they put their minds to it (and I'm no great fan of America).
I do not believe however, that mankind will ever surpass this achievement. I'm sure that we will return to the moon and even find our way to other planets. We may even eventually populate them. To me though, this will be a lesser achievement than the first moon landings that were done within a decade of first going into space, using technology that can be judged by looking at the cars of that era. If we do go to other planets, it won't be because we choose to go. It will because we need to go - because we have drained our own planet of resources or even made it incapable of supporting life. That's not what I call a great achievement.
Apologies for the negative summary. I hope I will be proved wrong, but I fear not.
|Doc Marten||21/07/2019 14:39:08|
|378 forum posts|
I have to agree Gary, I too doubt the achievement will ever be surpassed in relative terms.
|john stones 1||21/07/2019 14:52:50|
10701 forum posts
I'll leave the predictions of the future alone, Moon landings part of my childhood, coupled with the Ali fights, did they happen ? Yes, but Henry Cooper was robbed.
|Doc Marten||21/07/2019 15:00:50|
|378 forum posts|
From what I remember this is basically how the programme was focused: On the low tech relatively inexperienced, 2nd world, clunky technology of communist Russia against the slick, hi tech, solid state technology of 1st world America and the pressure on the Soviets to make up the lost ground by simply 'giving it a go'. I seem to remember that there were something like a dozen catastrophic, explosive failures on the launch pad before they got to the end result.
|Kim Taylor||21/07/2019 17:47:17|
|280 forum posts|
In a previous life I knew Peter Fairleys son.
He (Peter F) was obviously well respected amongst the scientific community and the NASA astronauts, as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were house guests and became personal friends of the entire family.
|Steve Hargreaves - Moderator||21/07/2019 17:55:31|
6727 forum posts
I was lucky enough to visit the Kennedy Space Centre during a work trip to the US a few years ago....if ever you get the chance...just go...it's an amazing place.....
F1 Engine...the Saturn rockets had 5 of these....
Some facts about the engine......
Business end of a Saturn V rocket....
And slightly off topic but worth showing. They had not long opened a new museum on the Shuttle....to enter you walked under the main tank & between two of the solid rocket boosters....there's a person stood just next to the booster rocket on the right..... Big innit....
Just on the Van Allen belt too I read that travelling through this radiation would damage the eyes of anyone who passed through it. Apparently all the Apollo astronauts developed cataracts....
386 forum posts
“Just on the Van Allen belt too I read that travelling through this radiation would damage the eyes of anyone who passed through it. Apparently all the Apollo astronauts developed cataracts....“
I guess that proves that I must have been on a space flight and then had it wiped from my memory. Maybe The conspiracy theorists are onto something. . .
Edited By Trevor on 21/07/2019 18:46:47
|Martin Dilly 1||21/07/2019 19:15:31|
|62 forum posts|
It was Peter Fairley (poss. Farley) who spearheaded the anti model flying campaign in the 1970s that led to the Bromley Council's proposed byelaws to ban model flying in its parks. The SMAE (as it was then) fought this to the extent of briefing a barrister (far from cheap in those days, and doubtless far more today) to put our case at the public enquiry that the SMAE's objections led to; I know because I had documents and press cuttings going back to the late 1940s covering the sport in Bromley and gave evidence. The outcome was that at least silent flight, including electrics, was preserved, as well as control-line on certain days and sites, but i.c.flying was banned. TV science correspondent or not, Fairley, who had a house backing onto Norman Park where RC flying took place, was no friend of model flying.
|Martin McIntosh||21/07/2019 20:29:57|
2947 forum posts
I have sat back and had a good laugh at you all once again. You are easily stirred up arn`t you. Keeps the forum alive. Must think of a new subject for next time that things get a bit quiet!
Thanks to all for the informative replies though.
|Doc Marten||21/07/2019 20:51:46|
|378 forum posts|
I really hope you didn't mean this Martin, I thought the 'Troll' comment was unjustified but this kinda confirms it.
|Tom Sharp 2||21/07/2019 21:08:26|
3549 forum posts
To me, the Moon landing is all rubbish and best forgotten. We lost a baby daughter on that day, not good.
|J D 8||21/07/2019 21:59:55|
1308 forum posts
Sorry to hear you lost a baby and the same probably happened to many others around the world on the same day.
But for many all over the planet the moon landings were something good and positive at a time when so much was not.
|Martin Harris||21/07/2019 22:56:23|
8870 forum posts
I'm very pleased that you weren't actually being so foolish and naive as your postings suggested, Martin and thank you for putting to rest any tiny doubts in my own mind that there could possibly have been any truth in the conspiracy theories.
However, I would caution against further such exercises as it does seem to infringe the Code of Conduct rather and we don't want to lose your valued experience and contributions on technical subjects.
|buster prop||22/07/2019 10:20:37|
|471 forum posts|
I don’t know why the US moon landings would have been faked, it doesn’t make any sense. Each Apollo launch was seen by millions of people live on TV and those who were at Cape Canaveral. Presumably the conspiracy theory is that the astronauts weren’t in the rocket because they went back down the tower before it launched. Alternatively, the Saturn 5 launched them into an earth orbit for a few days instead of flying to the moon while the landing and moonwalks were being faked in a studio. Later, TV showed the capsule splashing down into the Pacific and the real astronauts emerging. I don’t see how either of those theories are possible and too many people would have known. Remember that the Russians were desperately trying to get to the moon first and their engineers knew that Saturn 5/Apollo was a viable system. Why would the Americans go to all the trouble and expense of building and launching several moon-capable Apollos and then take the risk of being discovered faking moon landings? Easier to just go there. The landings happened for the following reasons: Does anyone think the TV pictures from the Apollo 8 command module of the earth from lunar orbit at the end of 1968 were faked and were pictures of the un-docked lunar lander in orbit around the moon (Apollo 9&10) faked as well? If not, then NASA had a manned craft capable of orbiting the moon and performing 90% of the mission. The only possible reason for faking just the landing mission was because they realised in 1969 that they couldn’t guarantee a safe landing and re-launch from the lunar surface. Why would NASA only think of that so late in the project? Being discovered faking moon walks with actors in space suits would have meant the end of NASA because they’d spent millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money developing a system capable of getting men to the moon and then didn’t land them. Too much risk. Therefore, unless the whole Apollo program between 1962 and 1972 was faked, which I find hard to believe because of the huge number of people who would have had to be sworn to secrecy, all they had to do was ensure that the lunar module would land and take off again. Remember that Apollo 11 was tracked by Jodrell Bank, they brought back moon rocks, left experiments on the moon and evidence of the 1969-72 landings can be seen from lunar orbit.
Edited By buster prop on 22/07/2019 10:24:20
|Manish Chandrayan||22/07/2019 10:35:26|
|595 forum posts|
And we have just now sent off another rocket with a Lunar rover
|2758 forum posts|
I have to reply, because although I'm not going into my own family's recent similar troubles, only those who have experienced such a cruel moment in their life can possibly understand the affect is can have, and usually does. I'm so sorry that a subject that has given me and others a lifetime's interest and fascination, is one of upset and disaster for you and your family. Any anniversary of a bereavement is difficult to put it mildly, I must admit to putting such dates out of my mind which some of my family regard as callous, but it's simply the way I deal with things.
A date is a date, nothing more - celebration and remembrance can be held at any time and in one's own way.
Much is talked about the cost of space technology and how the money might be better spent - just as a comparison, the global market for cosmetics (most of which I submit is frivolous) is reckoned to be in the region of five hundred million dollars and is expected to grow to eight hundred million dollars by 2024. Could do quite a lot of good with even a fraction of that.
Edited By Cuban8 on 22/07/2019 11:33:26
|buster prop||22/07/2019 12:16:27|
|471 forum posts|
Mannish, I was reading about the Indian moon mission in this morning’s Times newspaper. 47 days to get to the moon? Reason is that the crafts’ earth orbit is made increasingly eccentric by short ‘burns’ to make it approach the moon closer on each loop until lunar gravity takes over. A manned mission would have to do it differently as Apollo did. Interesting reading and I hope it succeeds.
|Wilco Wingco||22/07/2019 13:07:30|
|163 forum posts|
If the new rover can find the flag and footprints lleft my the previous visits, them surly that is proof that the moon landing did take place?.
|Doc Marten||22/07/2019 13:12:00|
|378 forum posts|
Why the footprints? The flag, moon rover, scientific equipment and landing stage of the lunar module would be equally credible evidence.
All this talk of remote controlled spacecraft has me scratching my head; surely posessing the technical ability to do to that over using human operators would have significantly overshadowed the astronaut on the moon achievement and sent a much more chilling message to the USSR?
Edited By Doc Marten on 22/07/2019 13:21:53
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!