Now maybe they can figure out how to build another rocket engine capable of taking us to the moon. Our technology in the 60's was far superior than today's tech. From what I've heard, we won't have the tech to go back to the moon for another ten-twenty years.

I assume you posted this from a 60's era computer?

#13 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-22 12:58 AM | Reply | Flag

Gee, you think there is only one kind of tech? Probably. No, there are many types of tech. I was referring to our space tech. Did you think people went into space with magic flying computers? Probably.

#15 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-22 01:09 AM | Reply | Flag

Computers don't fly. Rockets fly. Planes fly. Birds fly. Computers compute. Try sitting on your computer and see how quick you can get to 30,000 feet. Let me know how that works out.

In the meantime, I'm hoping these engines can upgrade our current space tech so we can go someplace other than the space station.

You are aware they had computers in the Apollos, right?

#16 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-22 01:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

You are aware that they found rocket engines in the ocean, not computers, right? Our computers aren't holding us from going back to the moon---it is the rocket engines that we lack.

What do you care? You don't believe we actually went to the moon, anyways.

#18 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-22 01:16 AM | Reply | Flag

You aren't bright enough to know what I think. You believe anything the government says without question. I question. You baaa.

Yes by all means, lets let 50 year old engines magically "upgrade our space tech"

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

#20 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-22 01:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

You should upgrade your history knowlwdge. There is no current rocket engione that compares with the Saturn V.

The largest and most powerful rocket to successfully lift off was the Saturn V, which flew men and equipment to the Moon as part of Project Apollo in the 1960s and 1970s. The rocket's first stage had a lot of lifting to do, so it boasted the largest and most powerful liquid-fueled rocket engines to ever fly: the Rocketdyne F-1. Producing 1,500,000 pounds of thrust at sea level and consuming one ton of refined kerosene (RP-1) and two tons of liquid oxygen per second, the Saturn was propelled skyward on five of these monstrous engines.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-22 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I posted a link that says the F1 was the most powerful rocket engine ever made. How about some links from you that shows modern engines have more thrust?

I was thinking not only of Bob but of the larger conspiracy set. I bet Kubrick planted these engines in the ocean, probably after he died.

#31 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-03-22 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag

You think because they found these engines in the ocean that that is positive proof we went to the moon? I give the chance that we went to the moon as 95% positive that we went. This is based on the reflectors that were planted that can be used to tell the distance to the moon from the earth. Also recent photos of landing sites. The 5% that is doubtful is based on this video. Why would they fake their distance from earth---why was the video so good in the capsule but so bad when Armstrong actually stepped on the moon?

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-22 04:59 PM | Reply

I did google after your post and I see that you are correct. You should have posted your links when you spoke like I did. I doubt money is the reason we don't go back to the moon since as was mentioned above, we just put an SUV on Mars.

#46 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-22 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag

You think the moon has nothing more to offer? You think we know all there is to know about the moon? I think it would be great to actually examine the Cydonia region and see if those pyramids are just natural formations or if there was alien activity. I'd sure like a definitive answer on that "smokestack" if nothing else.

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-22 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag

As has been shown, the modern engines have more thrust, so weight shouldn't be a problem since engines with lesser power did the job just fine 45 years ago..

As has been shown, the computers of today are far superior to those of the 60's. Those computers handled course and reentry just fine.