[nknighthb]

What "stuff", though? The moon landings were conducted by a human brain in control of a (mostly[1]-)fully-functional machine. How does that translate to fully automated landing of an atmospheric aircraft already experiencing a malfunction?

[1] Actually, the Eagle did experience a computer malfunction that almost caused an abort to the landing before an engineer said they could ignore it. You want a computer to judge for itself whether it can still safely fulfill its mission while malfunctioning?

For further terror, consult the Apollo 12 lightning strike. When the computer is FUBAR, how do you propose it fix itself?

[CamperBob2]

So, just to make sure I don't misrepresent your position, you're saying that the people who built and programmed this hardware ( http://www.space.com/16878-mars-rover-landing-sky-crane-guid... ) couldn't safely land a 777 in SFO (or, for that matter, an A320 in the Hudson) any day of the week. Is this the case?

[nknighthb]

What part of the skycrane experienced serious damage or malfunction that the software corrected for?

The whole point is we're not talking about when things go according to plan.

For that matter, how many times has the skycrane been used? What is its safety record? If you go ask the guys at JPL how many times out of 1000 they think it'll work perfectly, what will they say?

Incidentally, not cool moving goalposts.

[CamperBob2]

Sigh. Yes, you're right. Nothing went wrong during the Curiosity landing, so I can therefore not use it as an example of successful flight automation.

You win this one, it looks like. GG.