US Space Shuttles ran on 1MB of RAM and 80′s technology

Speed-Racer4877d ago

Ya it's crazy when you hear it at first but I guess you don't really need much to get into space...just a system that works every time without failure.

Reply Agree 3 Disagree 1

RonyDean4877d ago

"A system that works every time without failure" wish I had that now...

Agree 4 Disagree 0

cyberbob4877d ago (Edited 4877d ago )

All credits goes to intelligent minds behind these technologies ....What did you say ?

Agree 0 Disagree 0

grahf4876d ago

Also a system that can be easily fixed by a handful of people in a fragile tube filled with oxygen on the fly is VERY important. Just like the old saying: "Keep it simple, stupid!"

Agree 1 Disagree 0

fatstarr4876d ago

thats just hazardous in todays times lol thats like 10 original gameboys right there

BeastOrange4877d ago

Fail safes? Guess that means they had extra floppy disks D:RUN_LAUNCH_FAIL lmao its time for an upgrade...

Reply Agree 5 Disagree 3

Gondee4877d ago

The process never changed. Just because thats what the computer onboard had doesn't mean they don't have other computers. They do have other computers.

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 0

plmkoh4877d ago

The less technology you have the better, it means less computer melt-downs from magnetic interference in Space.

Reply Agree 6 Disagree 0

Agent_hitman4877d ago

Fascinating, one of the greatest invention for 21st century, space shutting only consume 1mb.. I can't believe it.

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 1

ThatArtGuy4877d ago

You mean the 20th century, right? ;)

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 0

Agent_hitman4877d ago

Yes hahahaa, sorry typo

Agree 0 Disagree 0

Vortex3D4877d ago

Decades of tested and proven old tech is more reliable than new tech that has full of bugs. Also, being limited forces the engineers to carefully write the codes and being small has fewer points of failures to debug.

Just ask yourself why today's latest tech and software takes so much hardware to do so "little"? Inefficient programming with large codes that have tons of points of failure. Why? Quickest way to get the product out of the door and consumers love "huge" codes because they look more complicated.

NovusTerminus4877d ago

1MB of coding that has been tested time and again.

And could you imagine if NASA went from XP to Vista? Not a pretty thought when you are sending people to the moon.

That 1MB served us great.

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 0

rawrockkillz4876d ago

Haha, all I can think of is getting a BSOD in space.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 0

Khronikos4877d ago (Edited 4877d ago )

So let us see them go back to the moon and then measure how many years it took in between just so we can lulz at the fake landing in 69'. I kid but let us be serious. Nobody in their right mind should believe any of this coming from the governments of the 60s up until today. Most corrupt people on the planet capable of anything. At this point who cares if they did or did not go. Until they go again I remain skeptical of many things. Even if they did land why have we not been back. We don't know jack about the moon. Yet we apparently went like 6 times and now stopped and cannot get back there.

If they suddenly make it to the moon in 2030 that is going to put 60 years of computer technology, which was laughable in the 60s, between the landings. That doesn't even make sense.

Either we never went, we were warned off by others, or the whole thing is just completely nuts.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 5

ThatOneGuyThere4877d ago

...or it is a terribly expensive way to gather dust. There is no cold war to fuel a space race now. There is no reason to go. We know what is there...nothing.

grahf4876d ago

Its not a matter of "cannot get back there." Its a matter of risk/reward. What the hell did we find up there? Gold? Silver? Platinum? Nope! Just a lot of iron & silicon. Why spend billions, maybe even trillions going back if there is really nothing there of value?

Its the same reason we're not actively exploring the depths of our oceans right now (to plunder for resources)... the risk/reward ratio is too low!

Khronikos4876d ago (Edited 4876d ago )

LOL you guys act like we know everything about the moon like we have conquered space yet all we can do is go a couple thousand miles up right now and can barely fix our shuttles.

We know next to nothing about the moon. They claim to be looking for water, looking for this and that, and a few gulf club swings don't get you very far. Sure they did some great experiments if you believe we landed there but certainly there is much to learn about this natural satellite.

And really there is so much disinformation and theory about radiation that I will not believe a word these corrupt governments say about anything until they fully prove it and start a space station up there.

And that is the main point. A space station is the next step and don't tell me it is not important because it is. Earth is only one world here and now and there are many more out there.

I am sick of people down here making war and getting rich while all the idealism of the 60s is just gone to ****. We need to start being a better society again. Space travel is important. I hope we did get there but we need to go back.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.u...

Just a starter and quite a well informed piece without all the things normally associated with the hit pieces on the Conspiracy guys. I don't care one way or another just that they prove themselves for a modern audience by going back.

Agree 1 Disagree 0

grahf4876d ago

And your initial post is why we both responded... it reeked of conspiracy theory.

And on the contrary, I totally agree that a space station is the next step. The L2 space station that NASA has been talking about would be a really good thing, except that it wouldn't necessarily be for lunar exploration... it would be for exploration within Sol, and possibly space tourism.

And LOL at your quote "I am sick of people down here..." as if you were FROM space. You're a human. You obviously have internet access, which means you probably aren't in a wartorn part of the world, and you're free to express your opinion, which also means you live in a society that allows you to do so. If you keep looking forward to 2030 or whenever the hell we start exploring outside our atmosphere again, life will pass you by.

Agree 0 Disagree 0

jerethdagryphon4876d ago

you do realize that the maths needed for the moon launch are doable on a peice of a4 paper,

we went why not go back money and reason, its rock its not even resource rich rock if they had say found gold on the moon wed have mined it currently theres no need

theres sufficient evidence to show we went there in terms of revovering earlier hardware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

sides mir went into space in 86 17 years after the appolo program iss is been up there a decade now with no real plans to end it, if we can do that moon is nothing its litterly plotting a figure 8 with the moon and earth as the orbs.

CynicalVision4876d ago

If NASA can land men on the moon using only 2.048 MHz and 2k RAM then anything is possible.

4876d ago

Replies(1)

4876d ago

Replies(1)

C_Menz4876d ago

Amazing that it could run on that small amount of RAM.

zalanis4876d ago

i agree with the conspiracy theorist, and do not believe we have gone to the moon. especially on 1mb. still grahf did get u there kronikos when he said u were human, er...u are human right?? lol just buggin man, but seriously he did get u there. ironically, the reason i dont believe they whent has nothing to do with the supposed landing but rather with the temperature on the moon it self (like-80c) or something, and the van allen belt. heard that thing is like crazy amounts of radiation. just too much to break threw without side effects. but i haven't actually been up there myself tho.so who really knows.

zalanis4876d ago

ok ok not to try and make a big deal but, on the picture of the spaceshuttle above, why is the ray of light longer in the water then its is on the surface?? if its genuine then the water would act like a mirror and reflect even the huge amounts of smoke no?? just saying. think about it.

Speed-Racer4876d ago (Edited 4876d ago )

You have to look at the source of light. Pretty much all the light is coming from the exhaust of the solid rocket boosters.

In the pic http://cdn.whatshawt.com/im...

you can see the side clouds reflected beccause the light from the flames bounce off them onto the water and into the lens, so you see that reflection, but the cloud in the most frontal view has no light hitting it, so no reflection. Given how high the rocket has already gone, the shadow cast from the smoke must be off a really small angle from its base as well...so that's why it looks like a shopped picture.

I'm guessing if the rocket wasn't there, the area would be close to pitch black.

Lmao @ whoever disagreed with you -.- Wish ppl would comment instead of making those who may not know seem like they're idiots.