Holla Forums goes to the moon

The technology that got the US to the moon is over 48 years old.
What did they use to get to it? In the current age the materials will be cheaper and computer power required are way easier to get.

Gist of it is, what do you need to go the moon?

Other urls found in this thread:

latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story,amp.html
latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story,amp.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman#Missile_farm_concept
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1
cytu.be/r/universe
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

government funding

That nigger Elon Musk didn't have any gov funding when he was developing his falcon rocket. All private funds. After it was proved to be a reliable and effective rocket, Nasa used it to supply the ISS.

i honestly dont know enough about his story to know the origins of his space expeditions, although i think he has a plan to start mining operations for the megabux on mars/the moon
but look at this
www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story,amp.html

>latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story,amp.html

>latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story,amp.html

Yeah but Elon Musk relies entirely on government handouts and subsidies with his ecological disaster, inefficient pet projects like Tesla. His reusable rocket is dangerous in terms of engineering, because its reusability relies on making lots of precise maneuvers which the on-board computer will have to calculate in real time in fractions of a second. It seems as if it's not possible to mass produce these rockets because of calibrations involving the on-board computer. Even modern rocket systems tend to get numeric calculations all fucked up if not calibrated for a day beyond date, like the AA systems. It would be better to mass produce rockets that are single-use but are able to be stripped for components and metals. It would save on faultiness and overcomplex engineering. Either that or next-gen space-planes, maybe space gun.

You don't need some bureacrats approval that some nigger needs to go with you on your space flight, as is current Nasa policy. Everything can be done with private funds.
I need to know what kind of stuff the moon landing guys used to get there.

Read the wiki on his company
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX
In the wiki, Elon Musk is already setting a company with the intent of lunar tourism. His first rocket in 2008 was fully privately funded.
Even if it wasn't, great pieces of technology like the car were all on private funds.

You need lots of capital, I recognise this. But it doesn't have to be gov money.

You are missing a big problem, yes, money is one of them, but the bigger one is that NASA was destroyed, the "white cis christian male" club was destroyed, you have a few mexicans doing something but the rest…


Africa get a fuckton of money every year.

And that is not the purpose of this thread. I don't care about funding. I just want to know what kind of materials and technologies they used to get there.

There has to be archives of how they did it. Diagrams, what kind of materials they used. It has to have been stored. That is what I need.

...

How then did the rockets work in the 60s and the 70s? They were quite succesfull, why are the current rockets according to you so unsafe?

I have the same question.

They used ceramic in the rockets? For what?

Video related.

just wait until your rocket gets up there, you might hear a big splash.

I am talking about Musk's rockets, not rockets of today. Rockets overall today are better than they have ever been, they are very precise if they are important rockets, like ballistic missiles. But they require constant supervision of electronics to make sure they don't get fucked up. They need to make high-speed adjustments to trajectory while in transit. If electronics fucks up at this point, entire rocket is lost. If this electronics is not maintained properly, rocket will fail. What's more is that these systems need to be calibrated as part of maintenance. For example you have mobile AA systems, like patriot I think, which need to be restarted often or else their numeric calculations will be off and rockets will miss target for sure.

Now imagine that Musk made it even more complex than that. His rockets are not only reusable, they are self-landing. So imagine you have this piece of falling metal, which has to adjust its fall with several complex calculations done several times per milisecond or else it's going to tip over and get fucked up. What's more, it has to land in a specific place too. If you remember, he presented that with the reusable rocket landing on a ship on sea. This is an overengineered solution because it adds lots of layers of complexity to an already complex system for little purpose. Now keep in mind that most of the ICBMs and ballistic missiles are not used, they sit in storages. What kind of maintenance and how many post-landing tests do you need to do before safely saying that rocket is good to go again? I assume Musk hopes to gain permanent bucks by servicing his rockets to space companies, because he offers a way-around solution. Personally I think his rocket would have been cheaper, safer and generally better if he had done it so that you could stripmine junk that's landed and use it to build another rocket from scratch.

...

If your point is correct then the moon landing never happened.


Well, at least they aren using osx.

...

How so? Where in his post does it imply the moon landing never happened?

Back in the day they had enough computing power to make these correction calculations, so I don't know what you're seeing that I am not.

the moon is hologram

I'll see about that when I go there with my own rocket.

enjoy asploding with ur rocket put together by sweatshop workers

You're thinking the same as this guy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman#Missile_farm_concept

...

moar

...

...

op
I have the ultimate collection of the U.S. space program.
It includes info on all NASA operations ever. Photographs and tech info.
An added bonus is the Soviet Program as well.
I capped the pdf folder pics related.
Info graphics and tons of tech stuff also.

File size for the compleat collection is c.10g.
PDF folder is 1g.

Let me know if you have an interest.

nigger what

My preamble was succinct, I think.

i know you're probably too dumb to know this operator, but there was a tv show about just this very thing and it was thought up long before you ever came up with it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1

Well, thats debateable. Is it cheaper to have the complicated electronics where the rocket lands on a predertermined point, where it can be refueled and relaunched if needed, or a rocket where there is no expensive electronic system, and it just lands in the sea, where it needs to be picked up,

cytu.be/r/universe
a lot of interesting space stuff is streamed there live with chat, everyday it starts at 8est (4hours) if anyone is interested

When you launch a rocket like that and it comes back, it needs to pass all the checks a normal rocket has to pass all over again. This goes with replacing of components that are damaged and so on. Expensive and complex electronics, or anything really, has the tendency to fail and every time it does, it hurts investors' pockets. It's not as simple as retrieving the rocket and refueling it. I don't see it saving costs, it's more like an interesting piece of technology that has a really niche use today. It might be important if you have a moon colony and your rocket needs to land in a specific spot to assure cargo won't get fucked by hilly terrain. But so far, like most Musk's projects, it just looks good on paper. If you want massive launches into space, then probably space gun is the most economically sound mode of transport on Earth, but the most realistic is space planes.

ump

No, no one is interested. this isn't fréddit

...

A 90% white country, with plenty Germans, add Nazi scientists.

The answer is huge fucking rockets. Way bigger than you can make at home. Yeah, you computer technology can do stuff, but you can't even make liquid hydrogen in your basement, you dumb queer, let alone build a rocket that will mix it with liquid oxygen and burn it with something like a non-retarded efficiency. I mean, to get to the moon you have to throw away more than 99% of your machine's mass, and a tiny little deficiency in your burn rate means you're not going to the moon today: in fact, you're dying in a horrible fire in a place where you can't even breathe.
I mean, have you looked at the Russian/Soviet moon program from the same era? They were basically 99.995% of the way there, and they blew up their rockets 9 times out of 10. (And then they claimed they were never going to the moon in the first place, and that the US never landed there either, but that's a story for another day.)
Look, granted some retards can get a 1.8L Honda engine to put out 800hp for 20 minutes, but this is like telling that engine to put out 4000hp and do it for a month without stopping. You ain't doing it, your retarded sandnigger friends aren't doing it, and saying that you have a better computer is't doing it.