Its called math. If you know the mass of the object, the pull of gravity, and the rate of rotation, you can tell how much more energy you need to add to your spaceship to achieve escape velocity.
Also, we did know that stuff. LaGrange points were well known way back then. My dad learned that in his physics course in the Navy in the 80s. If it was in military curricula at that time, NASA sure as frick knew about it.
Of course not. But the cool thing about physics is, if you know the mass of a planet, you can calculate its gravitational pull and therefore the escape velocity at any altitude and any latitude. I did exercises like this for my calculus class in college related to this and I aced them.
Actually we did. I believe it was Tycho Brahe that figured out that gravity doesn't change significantly over elevation changes and also discovered that gravity will have the exact same attractive force measured from the surface of a body.
Not only that, but you would need a crater whose bottom was more than 0.2% of the radius of the body to really change the amount of energy you'd need to achieve escape velocity.
A good example of this is the asteroid Vesta. We have gathered enough gravitational, compositional, and topographical information of the asteroid to know that the areas on the equator, which are at a 10% or more greater elevation than the average, have a lower escape velocity than the poles. It is not a huge difference, but it could mean the difference between returning with a sample and crashing back to the surface to leave a remnant of us for all eternity.
I do agree, though. The fact that we know the escape velocity of nearly every round objected int he solar system as well as for many irregular objects, yet we can't reach the moon with rockets that far surpass anything even envisioned in the 60s and 70s, is a load of BS that the sheep continue to happily gulp down.
I know. But if they know all this stuff about Vesta, not to mention they landed a probe on a tiny asteroid called Bennu and returned a sample, don't you think they might have figured this out in 1969? FFS they did have computers back then, even if they weren't super powerful. But there is a program called Universe Sandbox 2 that accurately simulates astronomical physics. Its been out for almost 10 years. And if a video game company can do that in 2011 (remember the tech back then?) what do you think they could do with a computer of a comparable strength that took up an entire building?
All I'm trying to say is, we faked the moon landing, but we tried to cover our tracks by making sure it was theoretically possible before going there and making fools of ourselves. I am of the firm belief that NASA knew exactly what they were doing. They sent people into space to go to the moon and they saw stuff they didn't want the general population to see - pyramids, structures; an existing, albeit sparse, population of aliens, and lights on the far side of the moon. They knew the exact mathematics needed and we did go to the moon. But we released a faked and/or highly edited video to the public. My Grandpa worked on a moon landing set for Boeing in 1968. So I know for a fact it was faked. I know for a fact we went to the moon. But the accepted narrative is patently and provably false.
Perhaps, even… entirely made up
Flat.
They had slide-rulers and rooms full of women.
People had more in-brain knowledge back then.
Without allowing digital devices they would beat the shit out of you mathematically.
The part that gets me is the control systems to go from lunar orbit to landing,
and get it right the first time.
During the Vietnam conflict they had pretty good inertial guidance systems.
I had a uncle that flew a fighter. He said you could do a dogfight and it would stay pretty accurate.
I personally saw the Apollo 17 night launch from 5 miles away. A Saturn V launch is jaw dropping.
The control system for the lunar landing is what I have a hard time believing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndvmFlg1WmE
Looks like the computer had 36 banks of 1kilowords ea. fixed memory and 2kilowords rewritable memory. All in assembly.
The tightest code I have ever seen is a chess playing game in 4k.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y37tXoBDx0
Many years ago I help port a 2D version of Space War to a Z-80 processor
I think we had 16 kilobytes to play with.
It was played on an oscilloscope.
A lot of it was fixed code -- like the gravity tables (no real time floating point math)
So that is roughly in the ballpark of NASA.
NASA got started with Germans.
H O L L Y W O O D
I'm just gobsmacked that you don't believe an oversized erector set covered in tin foil made it to the moon. You've clearly had too much to think.
Its called math. If you know the mass of the object, the pull of gravity, and the rate of rotation, you can tell how much more energy you need to add to your spaceship to achieve escape velocity.
Also, we did know that stuff. LaGrange points were well known way back then. My dad learned that in his physics course in the Navy in the 80s. If it was in military curricula at that time, NASA sure as frick knew about it.
Of course not. But the cool thing about physics is, if you know the mass of a planet, you can calculate its gravitational pull and therefore the escape velocity at any altitude and any latitude. I did exercises like this for my calculus class in college related to this and I aced them.
Deep fake moon landing.
Actually we did. I believe it was Tycho Brahe that figured out that gravity doesn't change significantly over elevation changes and also discovered that gravity will have the exact same attractive force measured from the surface of a body.
Not only that, but you would need a crater whose bottom was more than 0.2% of the radius of the body to really change the amount of energy you'd need to achieve escape velocity.
A good example of this is the asteroid Vesta. We have gathered enough gravitational, compositional, and topographical information of the asteroid to know that the areas on the equator, which are at a 10% or more greater elevation than the average, have a lower escape velocity than the poles. It is not a huge difference, but it could mean the difference between returning with a sample and crashing back to the surface to leave a remnant of us for all eternity.
I do agree, though. The fact that we know the escape velocity of nearly every round objected int he solar system as well as for many irregular objects, yet we can't reach the moon with rockets that far surpass anything even envisioned in the 60s and 70s, is a load of BS that the sheep continue to happily gulp down.
I know. But if they know all this stuff about Vesta, not to mention they landed a probe on a tiny asteroid called Bennu and returned a sample, don't you think they might have figured this out in 1969? FFS they did have computers back then, even if they weren't super powerful. But there is a program called Universe Sandbox 2 that accurately simulates astronomical physics. Its been out for almost 10 years. And if a video game company can do that in 2011 (remember the tech back then?) what do you think they could do with a computer of a comparable strength that took up an entire building?
All I'm trying to say is, we faked the moon landing, but we tried to cover our tracks by making sure it was theoretically possible before going there and making fools of ourselves. I am of the firm belief that NASA knew exactly what they were doing. They sent people into space to go to the moon and they saw stuff they didn't want the general population to see - pyramids, structures; an existing, albeit sparse, population of aliens, and lights on the far side of the moon. They knew the exact mathematics needed and we did go to the moon. But we released a faked and/or highly edited video to the public. My Grandpa worked on a moon landing set for Boeing in 1968. So I know for a fact it was faked. I know for a fact we went to the moon. But the accepted narrative is patently and provably false.