The biggest difference between 60s technology and today's is processing speed and memory. An orbital transfer window doesn't need to be precise down to the second. The burn needs to be somewhat precise, but adjustments can be made. As long as you're close enough to periapsis when you accelerate, you'll change your apoapsis. Do it long enough and you'll intercept. Decelerate when you're within the gravity of another body and you'll orbit. As far as landing, the moon has no atmosphere. There's no air resistance. The brightest pilots and engineers of a generation can keep a craft vertical while descending where acceleration is far less than 9.8m/s². The lunar lander was not designed to land on Earth. It probably wouldn't even be able to get off the ground.
As I said to another user, if you're willfully ignorant and obtuse, I can't do shit for ya but shake my head and move on the same as I do with tranny faggots.
Correct. The mitigation factor for lacking precision is fuel. It really is that simple. The really hard parts are all done prior to people entering the capsule.
Hell, what people don't get is that manual navigation to and from the moon isn't difficult. It's simply a difference of fuel use.
The same tools which can be used to navigate to the moon and back have been used to navigate the seas for thousands of years. But computers allow for less resources (fuel, air, food, electricity) and safer trips. Regardless, manual navigation is part of their tools and training.
Blah blah blah with the word salad.
Let’s see your best evidence that man walked on the moon in 1969-1972.
If you won't even read, I ain't giving you shit 🖕
So, you can prattle off science sounding terms as though you’re an experienced rocket scientist…. But can’t actually offer any proof for your side of the “debate.” Nice job, another fail from the Apollo defenders. I couldn’t believe in this shit if I tried with the ineptitude of people like you defending it.
(post is archived)