|
Post by laurel on Feb 21, 2009 15:25:52 GMT -4
Comment on CBC's site regarding an article about Discovery's launch being delayed: "It's amazing that 50 years ago, the U.S.A. was "able" to launch spacecrafts regularely [sic] and put a man on the moon. Now with allt he [sic] technological advances in those 50 years in regards to computers and lighter metals and better propulsion NASA can't even get a shuttle off the ground without 5 attempts. Really makes ya wonder if those moonlandings happened at all...." www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/20/nasa-delay.htmlRight. Never mind that the Apollo program was NOT 50 years ago or that with 131 Shuttle flights versus 11 manned Apollo flights, there are plenty more chances for things to go wrong. Some days you just can't escape from Apollo hoax theories.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 22, 2009 10:02:59 GMT -4
Gee, I wonder if the complainer knows that just before the very first U.S. space flight, due to many delays in the launch, an impatient Alan Shepard said to the engineers, "Why don't you fix your little problem and light this candle?"
Some flights got off on time, but there were plenty of delays.
I often wondered at all the problems with faulty parts, but I was thinking in terms of my lawnmower or my car. It's a lot more complex than that. Mike Collins put it in perspective in Carrying The Fire — An Astronaut's Journeys, page 304:
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 22, 2009 13:46:40 GMT -4
They obviously don't know their history very well, for instance, Apollo 9 was delayed 42 hours due to the crew getting ill and that's the one I found without looking too hard.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 22, 2009 18:40:08 GMT -4
That's a common trait amongst hoax believers. If they did know (and accept) their history, they wouldn't make many of the claims they currently do.
|
|
|
Post by comarre on Mar 8, 2009 9:26:45 GMT -4
They obviously don't know their history very well, for instance, Apollo 9 was delayed 42 hours due to the crew getting ill and that's the one I found without looking too hard. Apollo 14 delayed 40 minutes Apollo 17 delayed 2 hours and 40 minutes
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 8, 2009 9:59:42 GMT -4
And as Sy Liebergot pointed out, these days NASA tends to subscribe to a policy of "Risk Aversion Management" thereby delaying longer than in the gung-ho days of old.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 8, 2009 11:14:42 GMT -4
And as Sy Liebergot pointed out, these days NASA tends to subscribe to a policy of "Risk Aversion Management" thereby delaying longer than in the gung-ho days of old.During which they infamously scratched the "No Launch in a Thunderstorm" rule so that they could get Apollo 12 up on schedule and if not for two quick thinking individuals would have ended up with them dropping in the Atlantic a wee bit before planned.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 18, 2009 2:11:49 GMT -4
IIRC, Apollo 16 was rolled-back from the pad and the CM was de-mated for repairs. Did this cause the mission to be rescheduled?
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Mar 27, 2009 15:15:06 GMT -4
Apollo 14 had a late launch, spent the best part of two hours trying to dock, and then damn nearly missed the PDI window with an erratic ABORT signal, was 50 minutes late for the first EVA because of communications issues... and that's just one flight.
But the Apollo shots were always uncannily on schedule.
And don't get me started on unintentional equipment failures - the <i>Antares</i> crew had a bucketload of them.
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Mar 27, 2009 15:16:05 GMT -4
Not to mention cocking up their HTML tags...
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 27, 2009 18:20:53 GMT -4
Your HTML tags are right. Posts in this forum require a different kind of code, though, using [] brackets instead of HTML's <> brackets.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 27, 2009 20:30:16 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 28, 2009 21:00:41 GMT -4
Mmf. <2 weeks doesn't count as late - This isn't BAUT, where they'd gig you for thread necromancy AND ban you for not replying in a timely manner. Thanks for the reply. It makes a nice counter to the HB argument in the OP.
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Apr 11, 2009 18:14:09 GMT -4
Your HTML tags are right. Posts in this forum require a different kind of code, though, using [] brackets instead of HTML's <> brackets. Thanks for the advice, BertL.Of course, I forgot to mention 14's late landing radar lock.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Apr 12, 2009 13:00:59 GMT -4
Or Apollo 11's 1202 and 1201 alarm, which almost resulted in an abort.
|
|