Technology was more reliable 54 years ago.

Post Reply New Topic

The train set itself, built on a really big sheet of plywood, was dismantled when we moved and the parts stayed in storage for a long time. They were probably just given away before the next move.

Exactly. Just makes me wonder. But not too seriously.

Why?

Whats to wonder about?

Spain sent Cortez and Pizarro to the New World, and got back gold, silver, and slaves, from the conquered Aztecs, and Incas. It didnt cost them as much as the Apollo Program. It didnt cost Spain much, and Spain ended up mining most of the world's silver from Peru, and started the modern sugar industry in the Caribbean.

The US spent 13 billion a year in Sixties dollars (almost half of the cost the Vietman War at its height) on the Apollo Program, and we got no plunder, no slaves, nor even the modern equivalent:petroleum, for that investment. There was zero fiscal benifit to it. So why would we continue the Apollo Program? Why would any other country in the last fifty years follow imitate us by sending a man to the moon?. It was all cost and no benifit. Except bragging rights (after the bragging points were made there was no reason for the tax payer to keep footing the bill). And yes...there was the less tangible benefit of scientific knowledge. But now we can get the same knowledge for far less money using unmanned probes.

Seriously. Why would expect society to keep doing something thats all cost and no benefit?

Last edited by naturalplastic on 10 Oct 2022, 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have fantasies that us WP regulars are sitting around a Christmas tree having a retro Christmas where we each give each other a piece of technology from the 50s to the 80s that we're very fond of. Maybe I will get that 1965 colour TV after all.

Then why is it all of a sudden being attempted this year?

And using your analogy, how much loot was gained from all the Space Shuttle missions?

They could afford 135 Space Shuttle missions, but not just one more moon mission in all these decades? It just doesn't quite add up, does it?

Last edited by Matrix Glitch on 10 Oct 2022, 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not talking about the cost, thanks.

I'm talking about the fact that technology doesn't seem as capable anymore.
I can't even preset the stations on my radio without calling overseas for tech support.

I can't imagine anyone putting a rocket on the moon today even with good reason.
Given the technology then, it's hard to believe they could do it.
It would be like us trying to land on the sun, or Jupiter today.
I bet the wifi signal would drop or there'd be a strike by employees before going. / sarc

I guess Challenger's crash really traumatised me.

@Cockney

Wished we still had the 1975ish Sanyo color set that was in mom's house only a few years ago...to give you. Still worked great.

I'm dreaming of a retro Christmas, that's the type I want to know.

I'll take it. What do you want in return?

If you went back in time and handed them a budget smartphone built 10 years ago, their jaws would hit the ground and they'd have heart attacks. It would be like super advanced alien technology to them, way beyond their capabilities.

My Mum said a lady from the village used to say it was faked when it first happened and her husband was one who was in high places in the military.
The film footage itself was obviously faked as it did not take a genius to see this, especially as it is well known it took place at Pinewood Studios in London on the same set they later filmed a scene in one of the James Bond movies, but this does not neccessarily mean the actual first moon landing was faked. One of the odd things that was mentioned was when years later the astronaughts were asked directly they refused to comment which was an odd reaction as the reaction expected would be "Get knotted" or something along those lines, or "Yes we did go to the moon but we had to film it elsewhere as a demonstration" etc.
Questions unanswered. Why the filmage was so obviously distorted when space was said to be no problem with filming and radio waves etc.
Why were there suspended wires visible either side of the astronaut?
Who filmed the first moon landing from actually being on the moon? (In other words, whoever was holding the camera had got there first so was the real person who should have had the credit!)

And the same question when leaving the moon. Who held the camera as they had such an accurate film footage of it, it had to have been a person to do that in those days. So who was left behind on the moon?

These all point to a controlled film studio footage which is why the film footage was purposfully fuzzy to try to hide the wires, as don't forget how advanced clear film was in those days, so it is pretty obvious the film was just for demonstrative purposes. But does not answer the real question.

There are also other odd things about the moon which really don't add up, as where was the dust, as it was calculated that due to the moons age and the moons gravity the dust on the moon was supposed to have been at least 24ft thick which is one of the things they were supposed to have calculated for...

All of sudden? After fifty years were timidly trying it again on much tinier budget than then?

Because voters have renewed interest in it, and national rivalry is again rearing its ugly head. Not as intensively as during the Soviet-US Cold War. But like that. The new rivalry is more multilateral. China was a destitute third world country in 1969, but is now a major power flexing its nationalist muscle. Sometimes even doing joint space ventures with India. So that part of whats prodding the US back to the Moon.


And technology has improved. So doing what was possible then is more feasible now. So why not?

And this could also be just flash in the pan. We dont know if its going to result in permanent cities on the Moon.


Human history is full of false starts.

The Vikings settled in Canada, but the one settlement died out, and did not start a wave of European exploration into the Americas.

Five centuries later Columbus landed in the Bahamas, and that DID start events that reshaped the Americas by Europeans.

Five centuries later Europe was better organized, and had better boats, than during the Viking era. And the Vikings didnt have guns.

We dont have it anymore. But if I did have it ...well I was trying to give it away for free in the community newsletter, but got no takers. So you couldve had it for Free as well.

There's plenty for sale I'm sure. One in working order would be a problem, because I doubt they make replacement tubes anymore. I remember around 1985 having a TV set that was old enough to still have tubes, rather than solid state tech. And there was a Thrifty drug store that still sold TV tubes and even had an old tube tester machine like this one:

Why don't you try a more contemporary comparison analogy like 135 Space Shuttle missions? They can launch 135 crews into orbit, but never again, until 2022 even work on getting one more crew past Earth's orbit. The actual 21st century moon landing via Artemis 3, probably won't really take place until 2027. In other words, we who watched the moon landings on TV as kids, might die of old age before this one finally takes place.

Last edited by Matrix Glitch on 10 Oct 2022, 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Most would probably be NOS, meaning fewer and fewer left.
The only common new ones are primarily for audio applications.

More recently I had come across a portable tube amplifier project that used low voltage automotive tubes. Apparently there was a large NOS supply of those.