As often as you idiots post it.
Someone who and what specific tech is it we lack besides the heavy launch capability? NASA has no heavy launch capability anymore that would be required for a moon mission.
and they never did have anyâŠ
In my view, it was the lack of reliable rocket power that finally killed off the Apollo project. NASA knew it was simply not possible to design a rocket of the required size
That, then, is the story of the Saturn Vâs unprecedented rise to greatness out of the ashes of failure. Despite the USAâs short and troubled history in space flight and the lengthy record of failure of both Saturn boosters, NASA somehow conjured up, in little over a year, the biggest, most powerful and most reliable rocket the world had ever seen â and has not seen since.
https://www.serendipity.li/more/myth_of_apollo.htm#3
No that was velcro.
Saw it happen on Star Trek
1 Like
BS, the Saturn V set the standard for reliable heavy launch capability.
And you think Wikipedia is a reputable source of info ? ROFLMFAO
1 Like
All of the references are annotated.
We led the world in heavy lift capability for 4 decades.
The only rocket to threaten that position was the Soviets fielded the N-1 which never had a successful flight.
Your own reference confirms exactly what I said dumbass.
âș President Kennedyâs Speech at Rice University [video]
âș Saturn V Launch in Slow Motion [video]
The Saturn V was a rocket NASA built to send people to the moon. (The V in the name is the Roman numeral five.) The Saturn V was a type of rocket called a Heavy Lift Vehicle. That means it was very powerful. It was the most powerful rocket that had ever flown successfully. The Saturn V was used in the Apollo program in the 1960s and 1970s. It also was used to launch the Skylab space station. The Saturn V rocket was 111 meters (363 feet) tall, about the height of a 36-story-tall building, and 18 meters (60 feet) taller than the Statue of Liberty. Fully fueled for liftoff, the Saturn V weighed 2.8 million kilograms (6.2 million pounds), the weight of about 400 elephants. The rocket generated 34.5 million newtons (7.6 million pounds) of thrust at launch, creating more power than 85 Hoover Dams. A car that gets 48 kilometers (30 miles) to the gallon could drive around the world around 800 times with the amount of fuel the Saturn V used for a lunar landing mission. It could launch about 118,000 kilograms (130 tons) into Earth orbit. Thatâs about as much weight as 10 school buses. The Saturn V could launch about 43,500 kilograms (50 tons) to the moon. Thatâs about the same as four school buses. The Saturn V was developed at NASAâs Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. It was one of three types of Saturn rockets NASA built. Two smaller rockets, the Saturn I (1) and IB (1b), were used to launch humans into Earth orbit. The Saturn V sent them beyond Earth orbit to the moon. The first Saturn V was launched in 1967. It was called Apollo 4. Apollo 6 followed in 1968. Both of these rockets were launched without crews. These launches tested the Saturn V rocket. The first Saturn V launched with a crew was Apollo 8. On this mission, astronauts orbited the moon but did not land. On Apollo 9, the crew tested the Apollo moon Lander by flying it in Earth orbit without landing. On Apollo 10, the Saturn V launched the lunar Lander to the moon. The crew tested the Lander in space but did not land it on the moon. In 1969, Apollo 11 was the first mission to land astronauts on the moon. Saturn V rockets also made it possible for astronauts to land on the moon on Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. On Apollo 13, the Saturn V lifted the crew into space, but a problem prevented them from being able to land on the moon. That problem was not with the Saturn V, but with the Apollo spacecraft. The last Saturn V was launched in 1973, without a crew. It was used to launch the Skylab space station into Earth orbit.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/rocketpark/saturn_v.html
1 Like
Yes they have . . . at least they soon will have . . .
âNew engine tech that could get us to Mars fasterâ
If this ânew engineâ can get us to Mars at the furthest reaches of the universe, even though whoever gets aboard must be too dumb to know theyâll keel over and die for lack of oxygen as soon as they disembark, then it can obviously get us to the Moon, which is on our doorstep, figuratively speaking. QED??
Itâs a project in development, maybe it gets fielded and works and maybe not. We have no heavy lift capability anymore and havenât since the end of the Apollo program.
What I said was correct the first time I stated it and that isnât changing.
Under what idiotic theory do you suggest they are going to die from a lack of oxygen? Not only will they take substantial oxygen supplies with them the ships will be able to recycle the atmospheric gasses en route.
1 Like
Yes, but youâre missing the main point, which is - they wonât be able to âtake substantial oxygen supplies with themâ to last for the rest of their lives, so whatâs the point of going all that way if the astronauts have to set off back here before it runs out? And the shipâs ârecycling equipmentâ wonât be able to oxygenate the entire planet. Perhaps youâre not thinking this through?
They donât need to take enough to last for the rest of their lives, all they need is enough to get there and get the colonies established.
Robots will already have the habitats built and functioning and producing oxygen both from the greenhouses and from cracking water.
So how long will it take to replicate everything we have here? And how will we be able to separate all the different nationalities; for example, where would Africans be able to live if there are no oceans and continents? Or â â â â if there are no borders between them and Palestinians who hate them? And I could go on, but Iâm beginning to believe that either youâre seriously naive, or youâre taking the piss out of me.
What the hell are you on? Mars is a different environment completely, we wonât be replicating everything we have here on Mars.
Eventually âMars Techâ will be adapted to the needs of those living there and new technologies will arise specific to that environment.
There will be no âseparation of the racesâ thatâs just retarded.
So whatâs the bloody point of obsessing about Mars then, if weâre never going to be able to live there?
Nobody but yourself is asserting weâre never going to be able to live there.
Of course, nobody is proposing that we move the whole population there either.
Mars will be a stepping stone and a laboratory for developing the tech we need to move even further into space.
So I ask again - why the obsession with it ffs?
Who exactly is obsessing over it other than yourself?
Itâs something that needs to be done, just like the exploration of this planet that went on for a few thousand years.
We are explorers and adventurers by nature, thatâs part of why Humans became the dominant species on earth. Itâs also what prevented numerous disasters from destroying humanity since we first started walking upright.
This planet will at some point cease to be able to support human life so if we donât have a toe hold on other worlds humanity will cease to exist.
If nothing else happens, the math tells us that the next asteroid or comet capable of of causing another ELE is only a matter of time and unfortunately we donât know when the clock will run out.
If we can succeed on Mars the next major step will be moving on to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn expanding our toe hold on the system and hopefully preventing that eventuality.
âMars will be a stepping stone and a laboratory for developing the tech we need to move even further into space.â
But thatâs even more ludicrous! If we already know what the conditions are on Mars why not anticipate the problems and work on them before looking for a planet even further off - and what would be the point of doing that if weâre never going to move there? And youâre asking if Iâm âon somethingâ?? 