quote:
Just saying "one more time" does not mean you sufficiently answered it the first time, you most certainly did not. You think you did, that's cool. But you did not actually do what you think you did.

In fact, the US is going back for reasons that are exactly what I said, that also run counter to what you said as reasons no one needed to go back
quote:
There aren't any, until modern China, and they are another 10 years out.
So we did it in 1969, and China won't have the technical resources and technological capabilities to do it until 2034? Or another way to put it, you're stating the US had better tech in 1969 than China does in 2024?

quote:
The fact that SpaceX can even attempt it is a testament to the advance of every technology aside from basic propulsion
So before you said there were basically no technological advancements that would make this easier today, and now you have a post stating the opposite.

I see your reading comprehension matches your IQ. I did provide an answer you can't refute, and you won't admit it, which moves you from the "ignorant" camp to the unfixable one. Sorry for your offspring, if any.

Have you ever been to China? I have. Get outside of metro Shanghai or Beijing, and it makes the Appalachians look like NYC for civilization. Ever buy anything from Harbor Freight even 15 years ago? It has only been in the last 25 years that they emerged from being a 3rd world hole. So you're saying a 3rd world country could match 1st world USA in the 1970's, 1980's, or 1990's? Or a 2nd world country in the 2-aughts? Nope, not gonna fly. And it didn't. Literally. Look up the Xichang Disaster and educate yourself. LINK Not quite as bad as the USSR's disaster on the pad in '69, but a hundred or so locals wish they were here to argue the point.

WRT to technology advance, again your reading comprehension fails you. I said that basic propulsion tech has not changed at all, and it hasn't. We still use chemical rockets with a pretty narrow selection of chemistries, and the same general combustion chamber and bell profiles. What has changed is CAD, CAM, CAE, test gear, controls, and a bunch of peripheral items that make it cheaper, if not faster - compare SpaceX's timeline to NASA - to go through the learning curve to build a moon-capable rocket.

And yes, 1969 USA did have better propulsion technology and space infrastructure technology than modern China, or Japan, or Europe, or anyone else. TO THIS DAY, the Saturn F-1 engine remains the most reliable, most powerful rocket engine EVER built. It is literally in a class by itself. All modern rockets seek to take a cheaper route that requires less reliability than the F-1, so they use more smaller engines, an approach with several tradeoffs that reduces the chances of spectacular test stand explosions and other kinetic events. Scoreboard, homie.

This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 8:48 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by shel311

McKinney, Texas

Member since Aug 2004

111290 posts

Posted on 4/26/24 at 9:02 pm to TigerHornII

quote:

I see your reading comprehension matches your IQ. I did provide an answer you can't refute, and you won't admit it, which moves you from the "ignorant" camp to the unfixable one. Sorry for your offspring, if any

lol good one. Sucks that you're wrong and now getting cocky.

You said no one has gone back because there's no reason to politically. And yet the US is planning to go back for many reasons, one being geopolitical. So yes you answered, you just gave an incorrect answer. Weird that you're getting cocky when you were factually incorrect, but you do you.

quote:
It has only been in the last 25 years that they emerged from being a 3rd world hole. So you're saying a 3rd world country

China wasn't a 3rd world country around 2000
. Now you're either lying to yourself or just clueless. It can only be one, but factually speaking, it IS one. I'll let you figure out which one it is.

quote:
again your reading comprehension fails you. I said that basic propulsion tech has not changed at all, and it hasn't

Nope, you said more than that. Now you're focusing on one thing you said while trying to pretend toy didn't make a follow up comment that contradicted your previous comment. So basically, you're lying again. You said the 2nd comment, the least you can do is own it, don't pretend it didn't happen.

quote:
Scoreboard, homie.

I lost track of the amount of times you've lied and pretended you didn't say things you did say, so thanks, a scoreboard to keep track of that would b helpful for me. Good looking out!

2 things can be true here. You know more than me on this subject, certainly. But also, you can't and haven't provided logical answers to some of my questions and me pointing that out has made you angry, and so you're now lashing out and taking shots at me. That's 100% a sign of weakness, something you're doing because YOU know you haven't sufficiently done what I asked. It is what it is.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by MoarKilometers

Member since Apr 2015

18251 posts

Posted on 4/26/24 at 9:04 pm to TigerHornII

quote:
And yes, 1969 USA did have better propulsion technology and space infrastructure technology than modern China, or Japan, or Europe, or anyone else. TO THIS DAY, the Saturn F-1 engine remains the most reliable, most powerful rocket engine EVER built. It is literally in a class by itself. All modern rockets seek to take a cheaper route that requires less reliability than the F-1, so they use more smaller engines, an approach with several tradeoffs that reduces the chances of spectacular test stand explosions and other kinetic events. Scoreboard, homie.

F1s got us up off the ground, J2s got us to the moon, and had to be able to fire up a 2nd time, deep in space. Rocketdyne really did some incredible work back in the day. I couldn't imagine the tension of getting ready to fire the 3rd stage for its 2nd burn