FabGuys.com forum: Moon mission

lancashire

In 1969 we put men on the moon with the computing power of a Casio calculator ,and thousands of manual calculations , it's now reported that it will be at least 3 more years and a minimum O2 more practice runs before we can land men on the moon again ,does anyone else find it strange and unbelievable that we can't do today what we did 56 yrs ago .or did we. !!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *seableMan
4 weeks ago

Halesowen

Yes and know.

Yes on the surface I thought the same, but No because.

* in the 60s they were trying to fulfil JFKs promise to do so that decade

* they thought the USSR was much closer to achieving the same thing

* it was far more about the 2 points above than any scientific benefits, politics was king.

After a few missions they realised the Russians were not even close, and what science they were doing was not worth the huge expense of each mission.

Since then there has not been the same political will to justify the risk to the crew.

The Apollo missions were incredibly risky.

3 astronauts died in an early mission and Apollo 13 was close to losing 3 more.

I was 11 at the time, totally captivated by it all, and seriously thought that in a couple of decades I would be able to take holidays on the moon, or go on a Space cruise liner and men would be exploring Mars.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *neeler40Man
4 weeks ago

mansfield

Did not have a TV at home back then!

Remember sitting cross legged in front of the school TV with the rest of our small school watching the news and bits shown in awe

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ldmanMan
4 weeks ago

Rawcliffe Bridge.

"Did not have a TV at home back then!

Remember sitting cross legged in front of the school TV with the rest of our small school watching the news and bits shown in awe

Same here.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ilthy tracy300 OP Man
4 weeks ago

lancashire

Whatever the reasons for going ie- political . They used very basic tech with the computing power of a pocket calculator ,and mathematics. They got there ,landed ,took off and returned, why is it so hard to do the same mission today ,the moon is basically the same distance ,the earth is in the same place (relatively) why all the drama and practice missions ,it's been done more than half a century ago ,with pencils and slide rules and a rocket with half the power as this one ,it doesn't add up

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust4inchesMan
4 weeks ago

Shrewsbury

They are just flying around the moon to see what’s on the dark side.

Pink Floyd could tell them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ilthy tracy300 OP Man
4 weeks ago

lancashire

"They are just flying around the moon to see what’s on the dark side.

Pink Floyd could tell them."
or maybe placing Lazer weapons in orbit under the guise of moon shots ,like china has !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *adBod1986Man
4 weeks ago

Runcorn

"Whatever the reasons for going ie- political . They used very basic tech with the computing power of a pocket calculator ,and mathematics. They got there ,landed ,took off and returned, why is it so hard to do the same mission today ,the moon is basically the same distance ,the earth is in the same place (relatively) why all the drama and practice missions ,it's been done more than half a century ago ,with pencils and slide rules and a rocket with half the power as this one ,it doesn't add up"

I'm not one for tin foil hat conspiracy theories, but I truly do believe the moon landings were faked, just to beat the Soviets to the punch.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *erscumdumpMan
4 weeks ago

Watford & Worth Matravers

Im not one for conspiracy theory either, but i've recently started to think the moon landing was a politically motivated fake. But then again, did we not go back for donkeys years simply because there was nothing there we needed (rare minerals) then, and now we desperately need them? Focus shifted to getting to Mars, which we did, albeit with robots.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *liceCDTV/TS
4 weeks ago

Hatfield

It will never be confirmed yes or no by the Russians but it’s strongly believed that a few months before Apollo 11 successfully landed on the Moon that Russia sent a craft to land on the Moon and obviously get on over the yanks

But allegedly in final descent to the Moons surface something went dreadfully wrong and the Cosmonauts were all killed

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *wadbisexualMan
4 weeks ago

Castle Gresley

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enjamin2018Man
4 weeks ago

Gosfield

It doesn't add up to me either .Isn't that the definition of Forum; the exchange and expression of different opinions and points of view ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust4inchesMan
4 weeks ago

Shrewsbury

I’m pretty sure it’s to check that Iran aren’t building a nuclear weapon on the dark side.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aopirateMan
4 weeks ago

Southampton

The appetite for cost and risk is what changed.

They went back in the 60's.

Now people would shriek at the levels of risk and safety tolerances used, and the cost to bring these to current standards, that is the difference.

Tin foil away please.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ark532022Man
4 weeks ago

Peterborough

These things do tend to snowball into complexity with bugs to iron out. I understand that the shitter malfunctioned during the launch which paints a picture. Good luck on their ten day journey!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
4 weeks ago

"It will never be confirmed yes or no by the Russians but it’s strongly believed that a few months before Apollo 11 successfully landed on the Moon that Russia sent a craft to land on the Moon and obviously get on over the yanks

But allegedly in final descent to the Moons surface something went dreadfully wrong and the Cosmonauts were all killed "

The Russian program never got people into lunar orbit let alone landed anyone even unsuccessfully.

The reasons for this were mixed, the unexpected death of chief designer Sergei Korolev in 1966, the lack of a proper testing facility for the massive N1 rocket led to four failed, unmanned test launches between 1969 and 1972. Financial, the Soviets were only spending 1/20th what the Americans were, and internal rivalries particularly between Chief Designer Korolev and engine designer Valentin Glushko. A lot of this was made public in the 90’s under glasnost.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ammy39Man
4 weeks ago

Glenrothes

It's basically all about health and safety these days. Apollo missions would never get off the ground with todays attitudes. Things got so confusing for the on board "computer" on the LEM that Armstrong had to take over and "fly" manually on to the moons surface, apparently with only seconds of fuel left.

What I don't get with this mission is why it needs 4 astronauts on board?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *issy SiMan
4 weeks ago

Horsham

"It's basically all about health and safety these days. Apollo missions would never get off the ground with todays attitudes. Things got so confusing for the on board "computer" on the LEM that Armstrong had to take over and "fly" manually on to the moons surface, apparently with only seconds of fuel left.

What I don't get with this mission is why it needs 4 astronauts on board?

So they can play bridge in their spare time....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uvolderMan
4 weeks ago

chester

I´m really not one for conspiracies...but

Every time i see that rickety moon landing vehicle i crack up laughing as it looks like something made on blue peter with toilet roll tubes,tin foil and a glue stick.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *over40Man
4 weeks ago

aberdeen

[Removed by poster at 03/04/26 09:30:37]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
4 weeks ago

What I don't get with this mission is why it needs 4 astronauts on board?

Well if the object is to eventually set up a lunar base, they are going to need more than 4 people to crew it. That means being able to transport more people (and supplies) to the destination - same goes if they try and go to Mars. They need to be able to test new equipment including life support.

Personally I think a better approach would have been to assemble a larger modular vessel in orbit to use just for ferrying back and forth between orbits. This could be fuled, provisioned, and crewed using smaller launch vehicles - something they are going to need to do if serious about a lunar base or a mission to Mars.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *fcdTV/TS
4 weeks ago

Southend

It’s down to money. With Apollo, NASA were given an open cheque book and burned through something like 10% of their GDP per year to achieve it. Since the 80s and possibly earlier, they have had cut after cut to funding and are now doing this on a tiny fraction of what they did previously.

The overall approach is broadly the same though. Remember, Apollo 8 was the first to even carry a crew. There were many flights building up to 11 thru 17 that tested each stage of the process, the hardware, systems etc. Artemis is only on Artemis 2 so they’re doing well on that front.

There’s also the legacy of Apollo 1, the two shuttles and those associated deaths so they’re a lot more risk averse now.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *fcdTV/TS
4 weeks ago

Southend

"I´m really not one for conspiracies...but

Every time i see that rickety moon landing vehicle i crack up laughing as it looks like something made on blue peter with toilet roll tubes,tin foil and a glue stick."
It had to be as light as possible. Every possible pound of weight was shaved off. The later missions had a slightly more powerful engine to support the carrying of the Lunar Rover vehicle.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enri du lacMan
4 weeks ago

Coventry

"I´m really not one for conspiracies...but

Every time i see that rickety moon landing vehicle i crack up laughing as it looks like something made on blue peter with toilet roll tubes,tin foil and a glue stick.It had to be as light as possible. Every possible pound of weight was shaved off. The later missions had a slightly more powerful engine to support the carrying of the Lunar Rover vehicle."

Also, there's no wind resistance (obviously) in space, so there's no need for streamlining, and nothing to bump into - so no need for a robust structure.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uvolderMan
4 weeks ago

chester

"I´m really not one for conspiracies...but

Ahhhh so thats why it had to be made from toilet roll tubes,tin foil and pritt stick then?super ultra light

Only joking and thanks for the sensible answer as i´ve never bothered to really take time to look it up so thanks for the insight.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hitebriefsMan
4 weeks ago

Chard

The Greens are working on a manned mission to the sun. They won't need any rocket fuel as the craft will be powered by solar panels (made in China)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread