Yep, NASA had "the flying bedstead" as a simulator for the moon landing. It almost killed Niel Armstrong. It was almost impossible to fly. Now computers land the rockets with precision. The computers in the Apollo era were measured in bytes of capacity and they were the first user input computers ever. My iPhone 11 Pro would be a super computer with more computing power than all of NASA of the 1960s.

Yep. OTOH, it takes very little computational power for trajectory control.

Fun fact, the 80's Space shuttle had all of the re-entry and landing instructions sitting in an HP calculator, should the main computer have issue. HP 41C, IIRC.

I thought he only turned into a 'flat earther' when he realized that community was a great source to tap for funding for his, err, toy. He'd been playing with this stuff for years before he 'bought into' the flat Earth BS.

I checked.

41CV ...and then on to the HP48SX (I have one of those inches away)

https://hpinspace.wordpress.com/category/space-shuttle/

I really don't get the hate these guys are getting either from the 'these guys have too much money, tax billionaires out of existence', or the 'pah, they're not real astronauts, they haven't done anything NASA didn't do 50 years ago, it's no big deal' crowds. I'm as liberal as they come, but I honestly think all these efforts, Space X, Blue Horizons, Virgin Galactic are the best adverts that the United States have to world right now. These companies are located in the USA, they are employing (directly and indirectly) probably tens of thousands of highly skilled Engineers, scientists etc. are are showing the world what can be done with technology and drive. They are taking something that previously needed cubic dollars of public money to make it happen, and are starting to democratize the technology. These maybe the first steps, this may be initially aimed at jaunts for the ultra wealthy, but all technology starts expensive and as it improves, expands, it gets cheaper and cheaper as it moves 'down' (cost wise) market. Plus, look at all the technology that the original space race provided, not just in silly famous examples like ball point pens, Teflon, Velcro etc., but in the advances in materials, process, analytics etc. The technology driven by these endeavors doesn't just drive physical advances, but it does an amazing job of driving hardware, software, manufacturing techniques etc. Remember when 3D Printing was science fiction stuff? Now a decade or so later you can get 3D printers for a couple of hundred $$"s for use at home. The draw from things like aerospace engineering helps drive these things.

Instead of trying to find ways to belittle or laugh at these people I look and say 'Wow, these guys had a visions, they've put their business knowledge and money raising abilities to use to make it happen'. Now to prove how far they've come, they are putting their own life on the line and are riding it into space to say 'See, we did it, it's safe, you can do it too''. Let's not forget, all these companies have had set backs, failed launches, explosions etc. Heck, unfortunately Virgin Galactic had two fatalities a few years ago when testing one of their units. That these guys are willing to put their life on the line is a huge to me. Good on them, all of them.

I'm sure no one will complain when the advances in engineering, training of engineers, improvements in processes and safety etc. lead to cheaper faster air travel, improved manufacturing that allows smaller, cheaper, lighter, stronger parts for cars etc.

I'm proud of them, and this country for providing the environment as well as human and technological resources to allow this to happen. Can you imagine anywhere else in the world right now where projects like this would be possible?

Hell, space X may be working on a different business model than VG or BH, but thanks to 'evil' billionaires with a dream, this country is now sending our own astronauts into space and to the ISS without having to pay Russia to send them. We should all be proud and stop the childish *****ing.

"The Right Stuff" has always been at the top of my favorite movies list. Another is the 12 hour HBO doc "From The Earth To The Moon". Amazing footage and won tons of awards....

https://www.amazon.com/Earth-Moon-DC-BD-Blu-ray/dp/B07QH82N1Z/ref=pd_sbs_1/147-1377939-8481105?pd_rd_w=dnSC8&pf_rd_p=8b76d7a7-ab83-4ddc-a92d-e3e33bfdbf03&pf_rd_r=1C9SMFPJGCD9SCMC7S9W&pd_rd_r= f796e025-8417-44eb-b722-3a1c412ea3ba&pd_rd_wg=0HCcG&pd_rd_i=B07QH82N1Z&psc =1

My sentiments exactly. In 1997, as a First Lieutenant I was at Edwards AFB when General Yeager recreated breaking the sound barrier in the back of an F15.

That man earned his wings the hard way.

My point exactly even if his 'control' was limited by the day's inadequacies. I'm not debating anything other than someone believing we haven't achieved anything since 1969.

We've done much, what all of this is worth, I couldn't tell you. I'm pretty sure the subject here of Bezos and Branson being beneficial to science vs. ego and money is a worthy discussion. I'm on the fence as to whether landing on Mars means anything other than we can and we want to.

Wanting to do something doesn't always produce spectacular results. I have to think that the Mona Lisa was not particularly earth shaking in its first decade of existence. It was a good painting (many could have said the best of all at the time, but is that the case with much of hyperbole?), and it persevered (survived) into grandeur.

How will we view these times in 100 years? Doesn't matter to us, does it? IDC what Bezos says about permanent living in space. I don't see that as viable for a 100 years. Only opinion — no more.

That's 5 generations. Yes, we are moving at a faster pace than the last 5 generations when people got around on horses and wagons (with a few crude automobiles in service). Today we ae still scooting around on 4 wheels.

And flying rockets to what end?

The power landings really only became possible with modern processing capabilities and miniaturization of fast and powerful servos.

That being said, it's nice for lower orbit, but pretty pointless for higher orbits as like said before, the weight matters for higher elevation and power not used is altitude wasted.

I doubt they'll use that kind of gimmickry for any high orbit, in my opinion it would be more useful to launch the booster (with hydrogen), get it up in orbit (empty)
Vent out the remaining remnants of the hydrogen in space
VOILA, now you have a free, container to put stuff in for whatever you want to do up in space...
On it's own , Obviously not going to be a life sustaining capsule since it will be to thin for life support and micro astroid protection but you can put stuff in it.

If you want to go far into deeper space, you can use those as outer protection for your core life support.. any object will first hit the outer former booster, and your core is protected.

Anything that goes up... and comes down under power.. is a waste.

Good refresher here:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a33601737/mad-mike-hughes-rocket/

Also, the Space-X stuff is far more capable and less expensive than the piece of crap congressional jobs program called SLS.

Oye. Move goal posts much?

Here was your last assertion:
The only "inadequacy" was knowing the detail of a close up view of the chosen/programmed landing site on the moon. The computer would have landed the Eagle there -just like Blue Origin and Space-X land their rockets where they want them- if not for Armstrong's decision to find a less rocky location.

Come on man, quit splitting hairs for the sake of same. We all know how much more powerful processors are now vs. 1969.

Do you just jerk your mouth off because it feels good? I think somewhere above you said, "Try to be nice." Well, why don't you just try and get along rather than always taking the I'm-superior-to-you path? Or, try to have fun. You sound like tabs in some ways.

Again, I don't know why I bother. Nothing said here means anything to anyone at the end of the day. Everyone jacking off and squirting on the other guys.

I am late to this thread and want to re-iterate what has already been said very well:

As much an astronaut as a club racer is a race car driver!
And yes, this is the latest pissing match, biggest yacht is no longer the challenge.

Generally one can say this is a colossal waste of resources, gaudy etc. - but it is just a hobby pursued with their discretionary spending budget.

If you have engaged in ANY serious hobby, you can see this even at our spending level. Track driving is a good example. It is a wallet race there too ...

G

https://media0.giphy.com/media/Jfwsj...giphy.gif&ct=g

So what you are saying is, that you will get unruly if people don't bend to your "superior path." - Tell us something we didn't know.

You were corrected. Get over it.

May be... even learn from it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3LPiM9d5QUM" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"Space Cowboy".... What a f***ing joke. Tulsi Gabbard is right - should've left his happy a$$ up there.

Good point.

Relative to my income i spend WAY more on my hobbies than those two billionaires.

The official definition of who qualifies for "commercial astronaut" wings has been clarified by FAA:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/us/faa-changes-astronaut-wings-scn/index.html

By the newly clarified definitions, it is likely Branson & Bezons don't qualify.

I'm okay with the honorary designation for B&B. Calling them astronauts would cheapen the accomplishments of those that came before them. They had to train for years (mentally, physically, scientifically) to go into space. They usually had backgrounds as test pilots or engineers. That background would come in handy if there were a problem while in space.