Said it better than I could. People ignoring the questions about it like that make me frustrated to the point of having trouble forming counter-points to their Kool-Aid stained regurgitation.
Next you'll tell me the titanic was fake because all that metal couldn't float.
Gotta love that strawman at the end though.
Next you'll tell me the titanic was fake because all that metal couldn't float.
Gotta love that strawman at the end though.
That's hyperbole, not a strawman. He exaggerated to emphasize the point. His point is spot on. That exact same broken logic is constantly used throughout here by people supporting your anti-science position.
I explain this for the casual reader, as I expect you don't care.
If you actually start to really think in depth about pulling off such a feat, timing the trajectory, entering orbit (how and when the fuck does that even happen?), landing a craft that had never been landed successfully on earth, it’s actually all extremely complicated and impossibly sensitive, which is yet another reason they couldn’t do it with 60s technology. But these people act like it would be “easy” or “simple, it’s really quite hilarious.
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.
It would be pretty hard to swallow if the entire flight depended on the accuracy of the launch and thereafter flew on momentum alone. But they had the ability to correct the path along the way.
Haha thanks, that’s funny because I was thinking of something like this when I saw the “white people IQ bell curve” meme on the front page right now.
(post is archived)