How could they send a man to the moon in 1969 with computers as powerful as today's laptop...?

Question

Ok, they sent people to the moon in 1969 with cheap and underdeveloped computers, but now it's gonna take until 2018 before we can do it again? What is that all about? If we could do it in 1969 with that technology, shouldn't it be a piece of cake to do these days?

Answer 1

The reason that man landed on the moon had almost nothing to do with space exploration and everything to do with one-up-manship between America and Russia. Whoever could get to the moon first would win the space-race, and have bragging rights over who was the more powerful super-power. Unsurprisingly, the Americans one.

Mainly because they poured so much money into the project and had teams of fantastic scientists working on the project round the clock. It doesn't take that much complex science to get up there, just a hell of a lot of force, and some computers to perform basic navigational arithemetic. All that was needed was a lunar landing, nothing else. Just touch down, walk around, and get off. In terms of the contribution to science the impact was minimal.

Now we don't really have much of a reason to go there, so instead of brute forcing the way up there we are looking to improve the technology to make it cheaper, faster and less dangerous. The moon is no longer the target, man wants to start exploring space in earnest. The moon can't provide us with much scientific insight, the rest of the galaxy might.

The fact that there is less pressure to do better that Russia or any other country, combined with the fact that the next venture will be an elegant pinnacle of science rather than a brute punch of a massive rocket, means it's going to take a while to get there again. Sure if we wanted to we could get their now, but it would be expensive and not very productive.

Answer 2

Laptop? Oh no. The Apollo era computers weren´t even as powerful as modern pocket calculators...
The computers didn´t do the job all by themselves. There were people piloting the crafts. And damn good pilots they were. If left entirely to the computers, that routinely crashed, the Eagle wouldn´t have landed. It would have slammed into the lunar surface. There were many near disasters and good piloting is the only reason there weren´t casualties.

Sure it would be a piece of cake to go to the moon today. We certainly know how but the only reason America went there in the first place was to prove a point. Going back now would be to just prove the same point. And who would pay 100 billion or so just to do what has already been done?

Answer 3

It really comes down to 2 simple reasons why we haven't gone back. Money and a reason. Both are linked. For example, what do we need to go there for? Most of the main reasons have been accomplished. Then suddenly we really need to back to look for a particular mineral or some such and bring it back if found. So now we have a reason and now we need a way to get there. While executing a manned mission is glorious and all, we can send a robotic lander for a tenth the cost of humans. So instead of spending $100 Billion to go back, we only need to spend $10 Billion. Still a large chunk of money but it saved us a massive amount more by using a robot. This is 2014 and trying to justify to the taxpayers paying an extra $90 Billion would be impossible.

Answer 4

The computers they used back then were even less capable than you think. They were NOT as powerful as the first IBM PC (4Mhz 8088).

Going to the moon is far easier to day than it was in 1969. However, space is just as hostile to human life today as it was then. The amount of engineering and testing to be done is about the same. And, those testing procedures are far more stringent than they were back then. Lastly, the amount of government red tape, budget changes, and congressional interference is at least ten times what it was.

Answer 5

In reality you can go to the moon with a sextant and a pocket watch, but if you have a way to control and link all your equipment and motors with a computer and you want to do it in a manned reusable ship (safety is paramount for your people and investment) what could be better? We are more concerned with our replacement for the space shuttle which will be retired. Is just a matter of the overlap in systems. They better hustle though or some home grown private company will do it first.

Answer 6

It is a piece of cake I was there and checked the data going into the tracking computer at Goddard in the Greenbelt Md. They used the older more reliable computers and I think they had 1 failure. It cost too much money to go back .

Answer 7

I have been thinking that exact same question for the past few days. If the "walks on the moon" really happened, then why, to this date, have they not gone to the moon since then? They keep saying "wow, we have found eveidence of possible life" or "an area which would support the basics of life", yet they have not gone back to actually study it?? Either the walks never happened or they are, like you said, paranoid about something else out there.

Answer 8

Because it wasn't the computers that pushed 6.5 million pounds of rocket to mach 25 from ground to orbit.

And just because there's been lots of progress in making teeny weeny circuits on silicon chips doesn't mean it's necessarily any easier to do the actual work involved.

Answer 9

The Apollo computers have less memory than todays calculators.

We had different priorities about space in the 60s, and a much much bigger budget.

Answer 10

how could they have built pyramids 4,000 years ago without computers ? Why can't we easily bulid one now ?
Why do you assume we can't put man on the moon now ? It is only a matter of money and determination. If we decided to do it, we could do it in the time it takes to design and bulid a lunar landing vehicle. Matter of budgets and priorities.
I hope you do not believe lunar landing was a hoax...