Voting

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by binTravkin

You know what deadly silence here would be if I did that?

Yeah, we really need a SMAX 2 to refresh this part of Poly

In '80s NASA was asked a question - 'on what circumstances and when will we be able to repeat this'.

quote:
If NASA were fully funded in 1987, they estimated that they could land men on the Moon by 2010, that's 23 years..

and later

quote:
Also consider the recent [late '90s] announcement from NASA that it would take scientists 15 years from now to design and build a craft to go back to the Moon.

This is roughly the same as if you went to Manhattan Project's staff and said 'Cmon, guys gimme some more of those thingies' after bombing Hirosima and Nagasaki, and they're like 'yeah, no problem, price is the same, come in after 10 years!'

There are other estimates too by numerous individuals inside NASA and other official organisations, but I'd like to see the answer on this.

At least from the scientific viewpoint it's clear that if they had the tech, they'd only need to outfit modern parts, make a proto, test it, redevelop some details and launch.
It would be a matter of months not years.
Definitely not twice as long as last time..

You didn't specify if the question was how long it would take them for redo the Apollo/Saturn V project or a new based upon current state - my guess is it's the latter.

Does that make a difference ? Well, at least compared to your manhattan project example it does - the main part of the manhattan project was to figure out how to refine the uran, not to build the bomb - a second batch would just order the nessecary material at the local U235 (or is it U238 ) pusher.

What you have to compare is the ships Colombus used to cross the Atlantic and what now w3ould be considered reasonable vessels - not in comfort but in purpose, and that of course takes time.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by binTravkin
No reason to respond.
Automated devices can deploy such things.
Concession accepted.

Prove that it was an automated device as opposed to the men who landed on the moon then. The lunar landings have physical proof. Your "theories" do not, and violate Occam's Razor to boot.

Originally posted by binTravkin
You see, evidence exists for both theories and is practically the same for both, just is explained different.
Thing is, noone can say who is explaining it correctly, because we can not send a neutral expert there to investigate.

Bull****, the photographic "evidence" for your "theories" is bull**** quack misinterpretations of the images, and you fail to provide proof for the existance of this supposed vast conspiracy, while there is buckloads of documented proof of all the work that went into the Apollo program, including hundreds of people who were working at NASA at the time who could testify to it.

Originally posted by binTravkin
I am not saying things can not be explained in different ways, just while there's doubt, I can choose either and believe and I have full rights of it.

You have the right to be stupid. I have the right to point it out to you repeatedly.

Originally posted by binTravkin
If you're so smart Archaic answer on this one:

First serious work in US Spaceflight started in late '40s, in 1962 Kennedy announced that 'in less than decade man will have had been on Moon'.
In 1969 man 'was' on Moon.

In '80s NASA was asked a question - 'on what circumstances and when will we be able to repeat this'.


and later


This is roughly the same as if you went to Manhattan Project's staff and said 'Cmon, guys gimme some more of those thingies' after bombing Hirosima and Nagasaki, and they're like 'yeah, no problem, price is the same, come in after 10 years!'

There are other estimates too by numerous individuals inside NASA and other official organisations, but I'd like to see the answer on this.

At least from the scientific viewpoint it's clear that if they had the tech, they'd only need to outfit modern parts, make a proto, test it, redevelop some details and launch.
It would be a matter of months not years.
Definitely not twice as long as last time..

Answered by BlackCat. As so many of the old designs simply can't be made anymore (missing documentation, no factories which are set up to produce the correct parts), and technology has come so far since then, they have to start again from scratch.

Even if they did have all the old stuff, and the facilities to produce it, simply retrofitting an old experimental lander or something would not produce acceptable results, compared to something built from scratch.

You seem to have the impression that NASA are the Borg or something, and that anything can be retooled, refitted, reworked, or reverse-engineered within a very short amount of time. Things just don't work that way in real life.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Also, consider the fact that there are so many controversial data about ML which all or almost all lead to one distinct suspicion, that one simply cannot outright believe it's not fake.
Name any other historical event which had so many questionable details (you can even call it suspicious detail density per some imaginary measurement unit).

It's only controversial because some people make a fuss about it. But it's a false controversy, like the bull**** between so-called "Intelligent Design" and Evolution.
And I can easily give you one there, one that has an equally large amount of lunatic doubters. The Holocast.

(Godwin's Law (Miller's paradox, Quirk's exception) has once again been satisfied! )

Originally posted by binTravkin
If they [US administrations] were indeed separate groups who never continued other's policy, we would see a drastic change in geopolitical situation over half the world each 4 or 8 years.
The fact is, country that powerful as US can not afford discontinuity of it's political aims, thus most administrations not only need to cope wih problems left by the prior (I expect next one will be in real problems), but also need to live with the course taken, doing mostly minor alterations to it.
I hope I don't have to tell you that if you have started lying it's hard to stop, just for the sake of keeping your prior lie covered.
Also historically the nations in position of power have abused information flow in their favour, US seems no different.

Occam's Razor.
I'll simplify that for you. PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS. You are the one upon whom the burden of proof lies. You cannot assume that this supposed conspiricy exists. You must prove it. If you cannot, your "theory" is a load of bull**** worthless supposition.

[binTravkin]

Prove that it was an automated device

Prove it was not.

Bull****(..)

Heah, you have passion in spelling this word again and again.

As so many of the old designs simply can't be made anymore (missing documentation, no factories which are set up to produce the correct parts), and technology has come so far since then, they have to start again from scratch.

Even if they did have all the old stuff, and the facilities to produce it, simply retrofitting an old experimental lander or something would not produce acceptable results, compared to something built from scratch.

You seem to have the impression that NASA are the Borg or something, and that anything can be retooled, refitted, reworked, or reverse-engineered within a very short amount of time. Things just don't work that way in real life.

Now, that's what I call bull****.
Missing documents?
Cmon, have a grasp on reality, they do not only have them but they definitely have backup copies as well.

No factories?
Cmon, to outfit a factory in building technologically obsolete material takes half a year at most, moreover because many of the equipment existing at that time can still be found in archives.
Do you really think they recycle their prototypes or throw into trash?
Well, than any guys who'd want top notch spacecraft of the time just need to dig some trash, eh?

I am more than sure that with the technology existing and the blueprints and all the other stuff in the archives, they could build it in less than a year and test in less than 2 years.

What you now here are stating is that nowadays it's impossible to build intel 4044 chips, impossible to use materials which now are not only obsolete but mostly also cheaper to produce because they are not uber-tech anymore.

And even if they really built anything from scratch (which they'd never do - they are not irrationally thinking as you appear to be), it would take less than it took the first time, because they have the knowledge HOW and what needs to be done, while at those times they were searching for the right path in the dark, unexplored areas, just like blindmen in a place they've never been.


If you really believe in this one, you must have lost any kind of logical thinking just to prove you are right (see my quote on closemindedness).

It's only controversial because some people make a fuss about it.

Yeah, like they thought up all the controversial things..

And I can easily give you one there, one that has an equally large amount of lunatic doubters. The Holocast.

Lunatic doubters?
Well, I for one have never met a person who doubts in Holocaust.

You have the right to be stupid. I have the right to point it out to you repeatedly.

Also your remark is taken, I reckon you call all people 'idiots' if they have any disagreement with you.
You must be very popular person indeed.

I'll simplify that for you.

I'll simplify that for you - if you can't understand written english, nor you have any reasonable amount of logics and rationality, not even talking about discussion ethics and the fact you don't even read your own given sources, I don't feel any need to repeat things that already have been said, moreso as they don't seem enough to you to even read through correctly, yet even give a proper argument.
'Bull****', 'strawman', 'stupid', 'lunatic doubter' and 'prove it' are not arguments if you didnt know it.

You didn't specify if the question was how long it would take them for redo the Apollo/Saturn V project or a new based upon current state - my guess is it's the latter.

Does that make a difference ? Well, at least compared to your manhattan project example it does - the main part of the manhattan project was to figure out how to refine the uran, not to build the bomb - a second batch would just order the nessecary material at the local U235 (or is it U238 ) pusher.

What you have to compare is the ships Colombus used to cross the Atlantic and what now w3ould be considered reasonable vessels - not in comfort but in purpose, and that of course takes time.

Blackcat, you see, the modern science and industry related to it are very advanced things in several areas:

1.They keep documentation of their development.
(I think this is obvious)
2.They use prior development expierence to develop the next level(if they didn't and if humanity didn't we'd be reinventing fire again and again).
3.As developments progress in time, old developments are getting more commonplace and cheap to produce because the industries producing them develop methods to produce the same thing either cheaper or in a better quality (this is especially true for hi-tech as you've probably noticed)

Therefore it's logically understandable that if factors like resource abundance (read 'cost'), target environment (Earth to Moon) are the same, documents are kept (in modern era it's a constant always equal to 'true') then:
Development time > Reimplementation time

You can argue there is yet another factor - industries and their adaptation to production of things and again I answer you:
Development time > Reimplementation time

in other words, industries at that time were actually developing the technology to build the spacecraft to Moon, now they know how to do it, it's onyl a question of resources how quickly they can make an assembly line.

This expression I gave is pretty simple and can be questioned over, but in fact the only factor that could affect the speediness of reimplementation is the factory adaptation time.
It of course takes time, but come on - 23 years? 15 years? 10 years?
Even 5 years would be some crazy amount of time!
By the way, if the German and Soviet WW2 factories worked that way we'd see the entire war fought with PzI and T-60.
One can argue, they were not high tech, but come on, the factories producing those machines went from producing agricultural vehicles (in SU particularly) to mass pumping tanks, and did it in a matter of months and also underwent evacuating and heavy bombardment still retaining good production efficency, not even talking about the fact, they were actually developing the methods of mass production, because the stuff they needed to redeploy building to was technologically new.

Do you really think our nowaday techies would take longer to do it?
Especially knowing their funding and that they need only to repeat past success plus the fact they don't need several thousand units of spacecraft but one or two at most.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Prove it was not.

You're misplacing the burden of proof. You're the one making the positive statement, thus you need to prove it.

Even so though...

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html

There you go, another prominent scientist for you to accuse of being a liar, yet again violating Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Heah, you have passion in spelling this word again and again.

And you seem to have a passion for saying things which perfectly fit the description.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Now, that's what I call bull****.
Missing documents?
Cmon, have a grasp on reality, they do not only have them but they definitely have backup copies as well.

It's not like this is something which is restricted to NASA. Many businesses don't have complete records of everything from those days, by accident or design. The BBC doesn't have a complete set of Dr. Who episodes, so why should NASA sub-contractors have kept designs for outdated rockets that NASA would never order again?

Originally posted by binTravkin
No factories?
Cmon, to outfit a factory in building technologically obsolete material takes half a year at most, moreover because many of the equipment existing at that time can still be found in archives.
Do you really think they recycle their prototypes or throw into trash?
Well, than any guys who'd want top notch spacecraft of the time just need to dig some trash, eh?

You're showing your lack of knowledge in the area again. To outfit a factor in technologically obsolete material takes a very long time in comparison to how long it takes to outfit a factory for modern goods, even more so when it's something as obscure and specific as the parts for massive rockets and the lunar lander. You don't just need the designs of the actual components themselves. You need designs of the machines to build the components, designs for the machines to build the machines to buld the components in some cases even. It's all quite complex.

Many prototypes would be and are. NASA has kept a few for historic significance (Enterprise for instance), but many of those are non-functional, and to restore them to a workable state, you run into the same problems with components as you'd have building one from scratch.

I'd expect that they were ripped up for scrap, not dumped whole. At best, they ended up at places like the Airplane graveyard, where they've long since become non-functional from disuse, and suffer from the restoration problems mentioned before.

Originally posted by binTravkin
I am more than sure that with the technology existing and the blueprints and all the other stuff in the archives, they could build it in less than a year and test in less than 2 years.

And I'm more than sure that you don't know what you're talking about, and can't prove your statements.
Here's a tip. When engineers talking about this subject, who aren't even affiliated with the program, tell you that you're wrong, it means that you're wrong

Originally posted by binTravkin
What you now here are stating is that nowadays it's impossible to build intel 4044 chips, impossible to use materials which now are not only obsolete but mostly also cheaper to produce because they are not uber-tech anymore.

Correct. It is impossible to build the Intel 4004 chips with the current infrastructure. There exist no factories which are outfitted properly to produce the designs, nor to prepare the materials properly to be transformed into the chip by the non-existant factories. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand?

They're also *not* cheaper to produce, because you no longer have economies of scale influences, not to mention that the components used to build them would actually be more expensive than the components used to build a modern processor.

Originally posted by binTravkin
And even if they really built anything from scratch (which they'd never do - they are not irrationally thinking as you appear to be), it would take less than it took the first time, because they have the knowledge HOW and what needs to be done, while at those times they were searching for the right path in the dark, unexplored areas, just like blindmen in a place they've never been.

It simply doesn't work that way, not when we're talking about such complex subjects as this. There are huge safety concerns to overcome for starters, not to mention issues with mission objectives (simply having moon landings - the next generation, isn't going to cut it), and the fact that they do have to design a lot of custom equipment from scratch to do all this. Don't forget the endless committies either.

Originally posted by binTravkin
If you really believe in this one, you must have lost any kind of logical thinking just to prove you are right (see my quote on closemindedness).

You're the one making logical errors. You seem to be stating things as "facts", when the sad truth is that you simply don't know what you're talking about, and your assumptions about how things "should" work simply don't hold true in real life.

Originally posted by binTravkin

Yeah, like they thought up all the controversial things..

Needless controversy exists over many topics due to idiots not understanding things properly, and making bad assumptions from their limited knowledge. Why should this be any different? You're simply stating bull**** "theories", and not coming up with any evidence to support what you're saying. Everything that you've put forward has been shot down. When are you going to produce something with some substance?

Originally posted by binTravkin
Lunatic doubters?
Well, I for one have never met a person who doubts in Holocaust.

There's plenty of the nutters

Frankly, if you haven't ever seen one, that only shows your lack of experience in logical debate. Which is hardly surprising, considering all your errors in logic concerning the burden of proof thusfar.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Also your remark is taken, I reckon you call all people 'idiots' if they have any disagreement with you.
You must be very popular person indeed.

If a person disagrees with me, and presents evidence which proves their position, I will gladly retract my statements and take their side in future discussions.
Frankly, refusing to accept an opposing arguement just because the person presenting it acted like an arrogant arsehole (however justified) is just childish and pathetic.

Originally posted by binTravkin
I'll simplify that for you - if you can't understand written english, nor you have any reasonable amount of logics and rationality, not even talking about discussion ethics and the fact you don't even read your own given sources, I don't feel any need to repeat things that already have been said, moreso as they don't seem enough to you to even read through correctly, yet even give a proper argument.

Now where did you ever get the idea that I didn't read my sources? I think you've lost the plot somewhere. You brought a quote in about how most people who believe this is a hoax make comments about the US being liars, etc....which is a perfectly factual statement. Most conspiricy nuts would tend to be highly distrustful of the government. What's your point?

Originally posted by binTravkin
'Bull****', 'strawman', 'stupid', 'lunatic doubter' and 'prove it' are not arguments if you didnt know it.

Actually, pointing out that something you've said is a strawman (You don't know what that is, do you? You really do have no grounding in logic), or pointing out that you've failed to present any evidence whatsoever for your statements, is a counter-arguement.

Of course, it's hard to call it a counter-arguement per-sae when you've failed to actually present an actual arguement yourself. I see plenty of statements of "fact" from you, but no evidence whatsoever to back anything. When are you going to get over style, and actually put some substance into this?

Originally posted by binTravkin
Blackcat, you see, the modern science and industry related to it are very advanced things in several areas:

1.They keep documentation of their development.
(I think this is obvious)
2.They use prior development expierence to develop the next level(if they didn't and if humanity didn't we'd be reinventing fire again and again).
3.As developments progress in time, old developments are getting more commonplace and cheap to produce because the industries producing them develop methods to produce the same thing either cheaper or in a better quality (this is especially true for hi-tech as you've probably noticed)

Therefore it's logically understandable that if factors like resource abundance (read 'cost'), target environment (Earth to Moon) are the same, documents are kept (in modern era it's a constant always equal to 'true') then:
Development time > Reimplementation time

You can argue there is yet another factor - industries and their adaptation to production of things and again I answer you:
Development time > Reimplementation time

in other words, industries at that time were actually developing the technology to build the spacecraft to Moon, now they know how to do it, it's onyl a question of resources how quickly they can make an assembly line.

This expression I gave is pretty simple and can be questioned over, but in fact the only factor that could affect the speediness of reimplementation is the factory adaptation time.
It of course takes time, but come on - 23 years? 15 years? 10 years?
Even 5 years would be some crazy amount of time!
By the way, if the German and Soviet WW2 factories worked that way we'd see the entire war fought with PzI and T-60.
One can argue, they were not high tech, but come on, the factories producing those machines went from producing agricultural vehicles (in SU particularly) to mass pumping tanks, and did it in a matter of months and also underwent evacuating and heavy bombardment still retaining good production efficency, not even talking about the fact, they were actually developing the methods of mass production, because the stuff they needed to redeploy building to was technologically new.

Do you really think our nowaday techies would take longer to do it?
Especially knowing their funding and that they need only to repeat past success plus the fact they don't need several thousand units of spacecraft but one or two at most.

For the benifit of future replies bT, I'd like you to give us a brief summary of your profession and educational background. You're making plenty of comments that are outlandish to my ears, but which you claim to be "obvious", which can only mean that you simply don't have any grounding in the topics concerned. Trying to explain such complicated things to a layman in a short and concise form is somewhat tiring, and I'm not typing out an entire textbook so you might understand concepts such as how reverse-engineering old technologies might be more difficult and time consuming than simply building them again from scratch.

One important thing I think I can at least say....they didn't have desktop computers back then bT. Documentation was rarely kept to the extent it is now. There was simply too much of it, and it costs money to store all that paper. Unless it was put to microfiche, or some similar medium, which would rarely be done, it was not common until only relatively recently for records to be kept for a significant period of time.


Here's another primer for you, BTW. I know you've failed to read the others completly (I expect you skimmed for that quote earlier, given that you're still sprouting claims that it would have refuted), so I highly doubt you'll read this either, but those in the wings should still see it at least anyway. Trying to convince you that you're wrong might end up impossible, but through a combination of solid evidence, and you're own failure to present any, I expect I'll convince more than a few of them beyond a shadow of a doubt.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

[binTravkin]

A brief summary:
1.I don't know a sh^t while Archaic is the super expert who has outfitted and retroengineered himself.
2.People have forgotten everything about ML and now need to redevelop the tech 'from scratch'.
3.Noone in US holds documentation of important designs, nor do they make backups.
4.Any documentation which is kept in US now is kept in 'desktop computers'
5.Us hi-tech devices go to Airplane graveyard.
Hey, guys, let's go there and dig some ubertech!
6.Anything that is broadcast to you by US officials is automatically proved, while if anyone states the opposite, he needs to prove it in all the details, otherwise he's just an idiot.
7.If one does not know what a specific word in English means, like for example 'strawman', he 'really has no grounding in logic'.
8.There are only two ways to understand things - 'properly' and 'stupidly'.
9.If you want to know what NASA has in it's records and archives - ask Archaic.
10.If one reads a source given by Archaic and then quotes it, he has 'not bothered to read it[source]', and when he pretends that Archaic himself has just Googlied a random link, he 'has lost the plot'.
11.When Archaic calls you stupid and you get upset and point out that it's not the way how discussions are done, you are 'childish and pathetic'.

And finally the most hilarious one:

12.To reinvent and build the wheel nowadays would take a huge amount of time, because the wheel will need to be built 'from scratch', tested 'from scratch', the woodchoppers would need to have designs on how to cut trees for wheels, the factories would need to have designs how to produce a wheel and many other things need to be accounted for. Finally a wheel would cost several thousand dollars.
And Im not even talking about refitting the wheel with modern parts!
After all noone holds the paperwork done for wheel because at that times there were no 'desktop computers'..

[MarkG]

OT