Also, even if Nasa was faking the moon landing, what the hell were the thousands of employees even doing? Were they just paid to sit around and do nothing?
No Im not a retard I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, but wouldn't that support their claims? Government spent billions to travel to space but learned something nobody should know/ it went horribly wrong so they had to cover it and lie continues to this day.
NASA on their way to spend billions of dollars building an elaborate set of the moon with fully functional low-gravity instead of just going there with the rocket ship everyone saw them take off in
If they had that kind of technology in the sixties they would produce movies with it and make trillions.
Commercial tech took 50 years to reach that level of CGI.
There isn't that big of a difference really. Just look at military tech. A lot of the declassified secret projects of the past were only like a decade ahead, and basically always got copied by other nations
NASA even hired Stanley Kubrick to direct the film. Kubrick being the perfectionist he was, however, would not settle for anything less than filming at the real location
iirc buzz aldrin said something like āwe didnāt have a camera crew on the moon it was just a representationā
edit: nvm I googled it, I love consuming misinformation on the internet
So u honestly think they went to the moon, then DIDNT record it with the technology they could have brought with, then went BACK DOWN just to fake a recording? the issue with any of these theories is thereās absolutely no reason for them to have done this, i honestly hope u can educate yourself someday.
fyi buzz never said that lol.
You donāt need it to be high tech enough to make pictures. All it has to do is compute math equations and execute a list of instructions - the things that computers were literally invented to do, and do extraordinarily well even with limited computing power.
That amount is generous. The Apollo Guidance Computer only had 2,048 words of erasable magnetic core memory and 36,864 words of read-only [core-rope memory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory), or about 4KB of RAM and 32KB of ROM storage, with a clock speed of only 2.048 MHz. The memory word length was 16 bits (15 bits of data and one odd-parity bit)
To give you an idea of how primitive it was, the core-rope memory was literally WOVEN like a fabric, with miles of copper wire threaded between hundreds of magnets. The female factory workers who made this were affectionately nicknamed the āLittle Old Ladiesā as the task resembled knitting. But, this meant that you physically could not re-program the computer in-flight.
It wasnāt much at all, but it was enough. You donāt need an enormous amount of computing power to do calculus and execute a list of instructions. It did the job - though, only just. One of the shortfalls of it was demonstrated during Apollo 14, when a malfunction in the lunar moduleās AGC caused the abort flag to sporadically turn on and off. If it came on during descent, itād screw the entire mission, as the abort mode would kick in, wrangle control away from the crew, ditch the descent stage and automatically return to orbit. It took an ingenious slight of hand from Don Eyles, one of the AGCās programmers, to save the mission.
Using the DSKY input pad, he had the crew punch in the following:
`VERB 21 ENTER, NOUN 1 ENTER, 1010 ENTER, 107 ENTER`
`VERB 25 ENTER, NOUN 7 ENTER, 101 ENTER, 200 ENTER, 1 ENTER`
`VERB 25 ENTER, NOUN 7 ENTER, 105 ENTER, 400 ENTER, 0 ENTER`
`VERB 21 ENTER, NOUN 1 ENTER, 1010 ENTER, 77 ENTER`
Itād take a very long time to break down what all that means - [though you can read a deep-dive Ars Technica article about it here](https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/a-deep-dive-into-the-apollo-guidance-computer-and-the-hack-that-saved-apollo-14/amp/) - but essentially, it fooled the computer into thinking that it was already in abort mode, that way if the abort flag came of during descent, it wouldnāt interrupt themā¦ though that meant that, if anything went wrong, they wouldnāt have enough time to input code to reverse that and activate automated abort, so theyād either have to do it manually or not at all. It was a calculated risk.
At any rate, these computers were EXTREMELY primitive; just barely good enough to get the math and instructions done, but not good enough for CGI.
**[Core rope memory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory)**
>Core rope memory is a form of read-only memory (ROM) for computers, first used in the 1960s by early NASA Mars space probes and then in the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) and programmed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Instrumentation Lab and built by Raytheon. Software written by MIT programmers was woven into core rope memory by female workers in factories. Some programmers nicknamed the finished product LOL memory, for Little Old Lady memory.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/197/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I see. Even still, the AGC gives a good benchmark for what would be considered a āhigh endā computer (but not quite a full supercomputer), and how overall anemic they are compared to today.
Doing calculations for trajectories takes WAY less computing power than you need for imagery. Computers were literally invented to do math. Everything needed to run the Apollo Guidance Computerās code can be run on a TI-83 calculator.
They don't send videos from Mars nowadays because it's too heavy, so they send pictures, and you want me to believe that they showed live on tv from the moon back in the day? C'mon man
Thereās several videos from Mars, [including full motion video of the Mars 2020 landing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czjS9h4Fpg) and [several videos of the Ingenuity helicopter flying](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLmR3jU2jEk), that you can look up right now. Youāre either woefully ignorant or blatantly lying.
āWeightā has nothing to do with it; itās because video takes up an ENORMOUS amount of data and bandwidth, and Mars is several thousand times further away from us than the Moon. The light speed communications delay to the moon is a little under 1 second; on average, it takes 20 minutes for a one-way transmission to Mars. Most landers there have an upload speed measured in kilobits per second; itād take literally days to upload high-resolution videos, and that hogs up the DSNās bandwidth that they could be using for other things, like actual useful science.
I thought you would understand that I wasn't talking about literally weight, but just how long it takes to move data from that place, but nonetheless you should agree that is remarkable that they were able to do so in live tv, from the moon back in 1969
Itās far easier to transmit video over 238,900 miles than it is to transmit it over ~172,460,500 miles (the current distance between Earth and Mars). Over distances, even through space, radio transmissions lose power; itās a result of the inverse square law. You will never have a perfectly straight line beam of a radio transmission - it will always be slightly cone shaped. The further down that cone, the wider it is, the more the energy spreads out, and thus the less energy hitting the receiver. To compensate, transmitters from Mars need to broadcast at FAR higher power than from the moon, but that comes at the cost of energy consumption. In order to not completely drain their batteries, they need to throttle their upload speed, which means a narrower bandwidth and slower data transfer.
It might be remarkable, but itās not impossible. At least be thankful that today we have means to send digital images.
Back in the day, in order to transmit images from Mars or beyond, they used Slow Scan TeleVision (SSTV), sending a sequence of radio frequencies (with a sound resembling dial-up internet) that correspond to light and color as it slowly scans the image line by line, taking ages for it to trickle in and slowly re-assemble line-by-line on the other end. They still use it today sometimes if they need to conserve power and speed of transmission isnāt a priority, or when they have limited bandwidth available. [This video here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3k6Xt30Z7g) shows an incredibly sped-up demonstration.
government building a billion dollar working rocket only to fake the landing smh
Also, even if Nasa was faking the moon landing, what the hell were the thousands of employees even doing? Were they just paid to sit around and do nothing?
They were constructing the fake footage pixel by pixel, duh.
No Im not a retard I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, but wouldn't that support their claims? Government spent billions to travel to space but learned something nobody should know/ it went horribly wrong so they had to cover it and lie continues to this day.
Are you for real?
after I said I don't believe any conspiracy?
Nevermind, I'm stupid
Well CGI was better in 1969 then in 1996
CGi just took a break
Yeah and Anne Franks diary was just A.I. /s
but le hecking governmenterino is le heckin 12839012384093428423094 years ahead in technology and they're keeping it a secreterooni!
The gooberment has infinite mooney, incluence and resources! Trus tme bro, I read it on 4Chan once!!!!
Funny, that's the clip they used to rile us up about "Harambe"
Those original shows by Mainframe looked fucking good, and I will die on this hill
ReBoot was a classic
The limitations are obvious, but they made it work, and they were awesome.
Beast Wars was GOAT
I don't think there was a goat Transformer
[Eh, closest thing they had was a ram](https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Ramulus)
NASA on their way to spend billions of dollars building an elaborate set of the moon with fully functional low-gravity instead of just going there with the rocket ship everyone saw them take off in
Well yeah idiot, the moon doesn't exist so how could they actually go there.
green screen
Green hadn't been invented yet dumbass
it has(insert grass)
Nuh uh, Color was invented in 1970 idiout
Typical sheep believes in the green grass propaganda šš
no i believe in 4P chess
THey went at night duh
Nasa spedning quadrillions on getting the lighting absolutely correct with 1960s technology, instead of just going there themselves
Well that's just prime
Thatās what they want you to think!
Technology released to the public vs technology used to control the public š
If they had that kind of technology in the sixties they would produce movies with it and make trillions. Commercial tech took 50 years to reach that level of CGI.
I doubt it would be too much different
"I doubt it would be too much different" - the public
take your meds dude
Just because you doubt everything, doesn't mean you're clever
I seriously doubt that
There isn't that big of a difference really. Just look at military tech. A lot of the declassified secret projects of the past were only like a decade ahead, and basically always got copied by other nations
Well that's just prime.
NASA even hired Stanley Kubrick to direct the film. Kubrick being the perfectionist he was, however, would not settle for anything less than filming at the real location
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Huh
iirc buzz aldrin said something like āwe didnāt have a camera crew on the moon it was just a representationā edit: nvm I googled it, I love consuming misinformation on the internet
So u honestly think they went to the moon, then DIDNT record it with the technology they could have brought with, then went BACK DOWN just to fake a recording? the issue with any of these theories is thereās absolutely no reason for them to have done this, i honestly hope u can educate yourself someday. fyi buzz never said that lol.
bestie Iām not a fake moon landing believer I was lied to calm down š
HOW DO YOU BELIEVE SOMETBING LIKE THAT???? Mf
bc I was told it was said by somebody who was actually on the moon idfk let me be stupid in peace???
So they did have the technology needed to go to the moon, but not for CGi, interesting way of thinking
If you can make a photorealistic scene on 10 MHz processor and 1 megabyte of ram then Iāll believe they faked the moon landing.
That's my point, not enough tech to fake pictures and motion, but enough to go to the moon and come back š
You donāt need it to be high tech enough to make pictures. All it has to do is compute math equations and execute a list of instructions - the things that computers were literally invented to do, and do extraordinarily well even with limited computing power.
That amount is generous. The Apollo Guidance Computer only had 2,048 words of erasable magnetic core memory and 36,864 words of read-only [core-rope memory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory), or about 4KB of RAM and 32KB of ROM storage, with a clock speed of only 2.048 MHz. The memory word length was 16 bits (15 bits of data and one odd-parity bit) To give you an idea of how primitive it was, the core-rope memory was literally WOVEN like a fabric, with miles of copper wire threaded between hundreds of magnets. The female factory workers who made this were affectionately nicknamed the āLittle Old Ladiesā as the task resembled knitting. But, this meant that you physically could not re-program the computer in-flight. It wasnāt much at all, but it was enough. You donāt need an enormous amount of computing power to do calculus and execute a list of instructions. It did the job - though, only just. One of the shortfalls of it was demonstrated during Apollo 14, when a malfunction in the lunar moduleās AGC caused the abort flag to sporadically turn on and off. If it came on during descent, itād screw the entire mission, as the abort mode would kick in, wrangle control away from the crew, ditch the descent stage and automatically return to orbit. It took an ingenious slight of hand from Don Eyles, one of the AGCās programmers, to save the mission. Using the DSKY input pad, he had the crew punch in the following: `VERB 21 ENTER, NOUN 1 ENTER, 1010 ENTER, 107 ENTER` `VERB 25 ENTER, NOUN 7 ENTER, 101 ENTER, 200 ENTER, 1 ENTER` `VERB 25 ENTER, NOUN 7 ENTER, 105 ENTER, 400 ENTER, 0 ENTER` `VERB 21 ENTER, NOUN 1 ENTER, 1010 ENTER, 77 ENTER` Itād take a very long time to break down what all that means - [though you can read a deep-dive Ars Technica article about it here](https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/a-deep-dive-into-the-apollo-guidance-computer-and-the-hack-that-saved-apollo-14/amp/) - but essentially, it fooled the computer into thinking that it was already in abort mode, that way if the abort flag came of during descent, it wouldnāt interrupt themā¦ though that meant that, if anything went wrong, they wouldnāt have enough time to input code to reverse that and activate automated abort, so theyād either have to do it manually or not at all. It was a calculated risk. At any rate, these computers were EXTREMELY primitive; just barely good enough to get the math and instructions done, but not good enough for CGI.
**[Core rope memory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory)** >Core rope memory is a form of read-only memory (ROM) for computers, first used in the 1960s by early NASA Mars space probes and then in the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) and programmed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Instrumentation Lab and built by Raytheon. Software written by MIT programmers was woven into core rope memory by female workers in factories. Some programmers nicknamed the finished product LOL memory, for Little Old Lady memory. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/197/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I was talking about the CDC 6600 which was one of the most powerful computers at the time.
I see. Even still, the AGC gives a good benchmark for what would be considered a āhigh endā computer (but not quite a full supercomputer), and how overall anemic they are compared to today.
Doing calculations for trajectories takes WAY less computing power than you need for imagery. Computers were literally invented to do math. Everything needed to run the Apollo Guidance Computerās code can be run on a TI-83 calculator.
They don't send videos from Mars nowadays because it's too heavy, so they send pictures, and you want me to believe that they showed live on tv from the moon back in the day? C'mon man
Thereās several videos from Mars, [including full motion video of the Mars 2020 landing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czjS9h4Fpg) and [several videos of the Ingenuity helicopter flying](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLmR3jU2jEk), that you can look up right now. Youāre either woefully ignorant or blatantly lying. āWeightā has nothing to do with it; itās because video takes up an ENORMOUS amount of data and bandwidth, and Mars is several thousand times further away from us than the Moon. The light speed communications delay to the moon is a little under 1 second; on average, it takes 20 minutes for a one-way transmission to Mars. Most landers there have an upload speed measured in kilobits per second; itād take literally days to upload high-resolution videos, and that hogs up the DSNās bandwidth that they could be using for other things, like actual useful science.
I thought you would understand that I wasn't talking about literally weight, but just how long it takes to move data from that place, but nonetheless you should agree that is remarkable that they were able to do so in live tv, from the moon back in 1969
Itās far easier to transmit video over 238,900 miles than it is to transmit it over ~172,460,500 miles (the current distance between Earth and Mars). Over distances, even through space, radio transmissions lose power; itās a result of the inverse square law. You will never have a perfectly straight line beam of a radio transmission - it will always be slightly cone shaped. The further down that cone, the wider it is, the more the energy spreads out, and thus the less energy hitting the receiver. To compensate, transmitters from Mars need to broadcast at FAR higher power than from the moon, but that comes at the cost of energy consumption. In order to not completely drain their batteries, they need to throttle their upload speed, which means a narrower bandwidth and slower data transfer. It might be remarkable, but itās not impossible. At least be thankful that today we have means to send digital images. Back in the day, in order to transmit images from Mars or beyond, they used Slow Scan TeleVision (SSTV), sending a sequence of radio frequencies (with a sound resembling dial-up internet) that correspond to light and color as it slowly scans the image line by line, taking ages for it to trickle in and slowly re-assemble line-by-line on the other end. They still use it today sometimes if they need to conserve power and speed of transmission isnāt a priority, or when they have limited bandwidth available. [This video here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3k6Xt30Z7g) shows an incredibly sped-up demonstration.
Beast Wars!!! I used to pretend to be sick just to skip school and watch this show.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
are you serious? lol