Did the American people Neal Armstrong, and his 2 companions really landed on moon such a long back?

Question

when computers are developing only in recently and are expecting much more growth for the next 30 to 50 years. So even now the scientists are not satisfied with the speed of development even when normal people feel we are developing. So how can the US people such a long back visited moon without any fault. Our Sunita Williams and Kalpana Chawla at this present world just went to space station and returning back to earth safely is not guaranteed till they land on earth safely. How the Neal Armstrongs group landed on moon without any error such a long back.

Answer 1

We had computers in the US since the 50's. they are big and bulky but this old fashioned thing called transistors and computer chips were already built and a thing called mathematics and physics are all that is need to land and shoot off. back then folks they hit the water or land in an ity bitty capsule.


even the space shuttle is old technology. it has been around since i was in elem school and i am now in my middle ages.

gotta love american technology. your indians are now americans and went on american technology.

for you to read and learn
http://www.nasa.gov/

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/home/index.html

here is the old history.

i was alive when they first landed on the moon.

who invented all the cool high tech stuff. AMERICA!!

we do things with a team bldg attitude that helps.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/index.html

Answer 2

There is so much wrong with your question its difficult to start. There is no question there was a landing. To believe otherwise is to be a credulous fool.
The moon landings did not need fancy computers. The basic computers of the time were quite sufficient. They weren't playing PS3 games, they were doing some basic math.
That's all that's required. What they did have was tons of money, national will, and Saturn V boosters. Today we have fancy computers, very little money, and we've lost the technology and manufacturing capacity to build big boosters.

There is no particular speed of development in space technology. The current shuttle is 1970s technology. All other programs to build newer spacecraft have been shot down for lack of money.

We didn't visit the moon "without any fault" Perhaps you have heard of Apollo 13. They made a movie about it. That was a serious close call. Truthfully we were lucky. The only people killed in Apollo were the three astronauts burned to death in a ground test of Apollo 1. You probably don't remember that. The relatives of the dead probably do.

You're right. Safety isn't guaranteed. Especially the shuttle, which was sold to the American people as being the very essence of safety. The companies who built the thing either lied or were absurdly optimistic.

Answer 3

1.) Technology is developing at an alarming rate. Moore's Law, created in 1960s, states that computers will double in power and speed every year. This has held true for quite some time. Also remember nano technology and the internet has been developed since the moon landing. Scientists might feel we are developing in the wrong direction.

2.) My co-worker worked on the space shuttle that Neal Armstrong flew in. Both she and I are engineers at gov't contractor and produce space products meant to go up into orbit. According to her, a lot of the technology was still mechanical. Most engineers say that mechanical devices are more reliable than software - take the Therac 25 software glitch for example. Today, the world is converging to digital.

Secondly, the components are becoming extremely complex. Once the project gets bigger, adding more pieces and specs, the more errors will arise. And since these pieces are becoming software, all the "parts" are abstract leading to more errors.

Thirdly, as components become smaller, physical over time problems arise. NASA has a concern about "whiskers" where certain metals will extend "whiskers" under stress. These "whiskers" can be extremely short but as components become smaller, the ability for these appendages to short other components increases. It's a problem that NASA is looking into right now. Furthermore, you have to worry about more noise and heat from smaller components. The list really goes on and on.

So the reason why Neal Armstrong landed on the moon where Microsoft can't even write a decent operating system is: ::drum roll:: Complexity increases the difficulty of the problem and we are just creating more complex systems as we go!

Answer 4

You might be suprised at how accurate mathmatics with old computers, slide rules, on paper or just in the head has been. American battleships used hydraulic computers to aim the guns. The New Jersey and others kept these computers as they were deemed more accurate for purposes than electronic computers. The Inca Indians ties knots in strings and counted every person and animal in the empire. The Mayas had a calendar and plotted stars and planets to an accuracy we have only recently surpassed, and that a good 1500 years ago.

I worked in aerospace and on the Space Shuttle in particular. US Space technology is very old. The Space Shuttle almost 30 years old. The US has no other manned launch vehicles and the Shuttles will be retired in 2009. No replacement yet scheduled but would probably be beyond 2015. We use Russia to launch satellites and men. The only remainins US launch vehicles are Atlas and Delta rockets. Both dating to the mid 1950's. Once the Shuttle is retired, the US will be out of the space race until another rocket is developed. Meantime Russia has more than a dozen launch vehicles. of which Soyuz, Energyia, Proton and Zenit deliver astronautscosmonauts and supplies to the ISS. Japan, India, China and France all have manned flight capabilities. No one will be visiting the moon until another heavy lift vehicle comparable to the Saturn V is built. The US literally put vall the eggs in one basket with the Suttle. Reuseable spacecraft was supposed to be economical. But in reality a money pit. The solid propellant rockets of the shuttle can be made new for less than half the price of reusing them. The US also used all its Titan III's converted from ICBM's to launch vehicles. That was the only high otbiter ground launch.

Answer 5

Yes, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin DID land on the moon. Michael Collins stayed behind in orbit around the moon.

They did it with the equipment designed in the 1960's. It's not like they didn't have any problems. Go watch the movie "Apollo 13". It's pretty close to the way that events actually occurred, I'm told. Also, remember that 3 astronauts died in a fire on the launch pad. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee all died in a flash fire while training for the mission.

Technology has been around for a long, long time. It's been almost 50 years to the day since the russians put sputnik into orbit. Mauchly and Eckert demonstrated a working computer in 1946. Goddard flew his first liquid-fueled rocket in 1926.

Answer 6

there's a lot incorrect along with your question its puzzling to start up. there is not any question there exchange right into a touchdown. To have faith in any different case is to be a credulous fool. The moon landings didn't wish fancy computers. the common computers of the time have been particularly adequate. They weren't playing PS3 video games, they have been performing some common math. this is all this is needed. What they did have exchange into lots of money, national will, and Saturn V boosters. on the instant we've fancy computers, little or no money, and we've lost the technologies and production means to construct huge boosters. there is not any particular velocity of progression in area technologies. the present return and forth is Nineteen Seventies technologies. All different classes to construct greater recent spacecraft have been shot down for loss of money. We did not bypass to the moon "with out any fault" maybe you have heard of Apollo 13. They made a action picture approximately it. That exchange right into a severe close call. certainly we've been fortunate. the only human beings killed in Apollo have been the three astronauts burned to dying in a floor attempt of Apollo a million. you probably do not bear in mind that. The relatives individuals of the lifeless possibly do. you're ideal. risk-free practices isn't assured. exceptionally the return and forth, which exchange into bought to the american human beings as being the very essence of risk-free practices. the companies who built the element the two lied or have been absurdly useful.

Answer 7

If you think the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked, remember that Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 also went to the moon and back (Apollo 13 ran into problems and had to return without landing) They could have faked it once, maybe twice, but SIX times?!!

Answer 8

Nobody claims Neil Armstrong and two companions landed on the moon.

He and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon. Michael Collins only orbited above.

Navigating to the moon is not a particularly difficult job. It's a pretty big target and it doesn't zig and zag, you can watch where you are going, and you can apply mid-flight corrections - which is something they DID do. It was much more difficult for the Germans to hit London with V2 buzz bombs in WWII - but they managed that, too.

Computers don't make you smarter. They simply do dumb things faster.

Answer 9

Actually, modern computers are largly derived from those developed to put men on the moon.

So yes, we landed on the moon.

With out error - No - We killed a few astronauts getting there. And damn near lost Apollo 13.

Answer 10

Twelve American astronauts landed on the Moon in six trips in the period 1969 to 1972. This is historical fact, supported by hours of video, thousands of photographs, 800 kg. of Moon rocks, and thousands of witnesses, including myself. They certainly had computers, which had been invented decades earlier; don't you know anything about the history of technology? Their computers were simple by today's standards, but adequate for the job.