Wernher von Braun . "Man and the Moon" 1955 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: gnavigator1007
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 03, 2019, 11:51:56 pm
content: I just watched this a couple days ago and since then I keep seeing people talking about/recommending it! Video was published back in 2015 and it's like youtube just started promoting it now.

author: eKretz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 08:53:24 pm
content: Geez, the simulation part reminded me so much of original Star Trek! I wonder if they used it as inspiration in the writer's room?Thanks for the link!

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 09:58:24 pm
content: Did they discover a radioactive alien base on the "dark side" of the moon at 24:50? Why was this included? Weird. 👽

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 11:36:36 pm
content: We STILL haven't tested an artificial gravity space-station/craftThere was the famous jogging ring in Skylab but that's about it.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 11:50:42 pm
content: Werny and his mates must have been on a serious pub crawl one nightand thought they could achieve what was in the 20th Century sci-fi books and comics, and Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers movie flicksGood luck with that

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 11:54:38 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Detective on February 04, 2019, 11:50:42 pmThey would have, if they had unlimited money and time, and any goal they liked. Unfortunately they only had unlimited money and set goal and date. So they had to engineer a practical solution that just achieved that goal and no more. Then the money ran out.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2019, 12:09:25 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 04, 2019, 11:36:36 pmIt wold be fairly easy to do; hook a long cable with a counterweight to a space station module, give it a kick to spin it, and voila, artificial gravity!

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2019, 06:26:40 am
content: What's so funny is that the "Moon Landing Hoax" nutters get a lot of mileage out of "How could NASA have done all the complex calculations needed with 1960's technology?"This film shows they knew exactly how it could be done in 1955, & had worked out the trajectories whichwould be used for a moon shot.The complexity was all in designing & making the necessary equipment, not in the actual task, & that was done by hordes of people, & mainframe computers.

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2019, 01:08:48 pm
content: A problem we face today is that we've become introspective, full of self-doubt and feelings of guilt. Back in those days theybelievedthey could do such things. Ergo, they did them.When you actually believe you can't or shouldn't do things, doing them becomes one awful lot harder. The current obsession with windfarms instead of looking for a safe and clean version of nuclear energy is a case in point. We know perfectly well that windfarms are a daft idea and will never replace fossil fuels, yet we spend more money on the things than thousands of moon missions would have cost. Literally.I see parallels with this state of mind and the fall of the Roman empire. A large part of the problem they faced was internal, feelings of self-doubt and guilt put about by a certain (ahem) nascent religion. Going back to the heyday of Rome they believed they could civilise the whole world. They very nearly did so. Admittedly their motives were not entirely ethical, a lot of it was about collecting taxes from people they assimilated into their empire, but the point is they had a positive outlook and they got places. When that mindset changed, it all fell down around their ears in very short order.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2019, 04:15:36 pm
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on February 12, 2019, 01:08:48 pmThis was a different time when people though that improving technology will solve future problems. A funny part is planing with nuclear power in space, even before it worked out well on earth. Some of there expectations look funny when looking back.I don't think wind farms are such a bad idea - up till now the investments in research and support for early deployment were not that high - they spend much much more in supporting nuclear. In most places wind energy is considerably cheaper than nuclear. I don't have current numbers but chances are the installed power for wind has already passed the numbers for nuclear power. The new installations are already much higher for quite some time.Going to the moon or maybe mars is not a problem we have to solve - getting an energy supply that does not change the world is more of a problem to solve. In theory the problem with global warming was long known in the 1950's - they were just better in ignoring it and visible change was not yet obvious.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2019, 04:38:01 pm
content: You know it must be propaganda, and mind conditioning made by propaganda, when people invariably arrive (here in less than one page of replies) from whatever subject (here space traveling) to the same subject: Global Warming.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2019, 05:17:34 pm
content: When Jules Verne dreamed of going to the moon, he used the technology available at the time: cannons.Of course, we know now that it is preposterous, the initial G-forces would flatten any would-be astronaut to a a bloody pancake just a few mm thick.But that didn't stop him from dreaming. And influencing later generations, which found technically correct means for actually going to the moon.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2019, 06:57:19 pm
content: After a 50 year hiatus it's looking like we're getting more serious about space travel again and I hope to live long enough for that to happen. I was not yet a teenager when we first landed on the Moon and I'm now in my 60's with little to show for the last 45 years. Most of the astronauts that landed on the Moon or took part in the efforts preceding the Apollo program are now dead with the few remaining deep into there 80's or 90's so unless something happens soon they will all go to there grave having never seen the expectations come to pass.Musk want's to go to Mars and Mars is the carrot at the end of the stick, but the costs are so high that not even Musk and Bezos can do this alone. OTH, we live in a time where it is possible for people to motivate millions to contribute to a cause with tools like the internet (YouTube, Twitter, etc) and GoFundMe etc. I think a concerted effort for Mars will require the contribution of many nations with individuals, rich and not so rich, as well as corporations and nations. Figure about $500B spread over 15-20 years or about $35B/year -- a bit less than Americans alone spend on cosmetics each year.Brian

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2019, 04:50:04 am
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on February 12, 2019, 04:15:36 pmThe worlds first civilian nuclear power station (Atomic Power Station 1 Obninsk) was in operation from 1954 to 2002. So, talking positively about nuclear power in 1955 isn't so strange. It worked well already back then, but they hadn't worked out all the quirks yet, as everyone knows; even so, nuclear is evidently safer and cleaner than fossil fuels as well as bio-fuels and hydro electric. If people had begun replacing fossil fuels with nuclear back in the 50's we wouldn't have a problem with global warming today (and air pollution would also be much less of a problem).Quote from: Kleinstein on February 12, 2019, 04:15:36 pmWind farms have their place but they can't solve our energy problems on their own. Nuclear is more expensive because of political decisions. Wind farms receive subsidies while nuclear is being heavily taxed and burdened with complex regulations and red tape. Nuclear provide a constant base load while wind farms only produce when the wind is blowing, so it's unfair to only compare installed capacity, but even so:nuclear produce about 10% of the worlds electricitywhilewind produce about 4%(renewable such as wind/solar/geothermal/tide/others produced about 5.6% of the worlds electricity in 2016; fossil fuels 65%).Quote from: Kleinstein on February 12, 2019, 04:15:36 pmThere is no reason we couldn't do both, it's not money that is lacking, it's will.