Pelican Parts Forums
Page 2 of 3 « Prev 1 2 3 Next »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   Could the Apollo program be done today? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/486591-could-apollo-program-done-today.html)

typ550 07-21-2009 08:51 AM
I remembered seeing this article 2-3 years ago and finally found it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400557.html

dd74 07-21-2009 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by typ550 (Post 4789351)
I remembered seeing this article 2-3 years ago and finally found it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400557.html
"The mechanics of landing on the moon and getting off the moon to a large extent have been solved. That is the legacy that Apollo gave us," said Jeff Hanley, manager of the Constellation project for NASA.

That's why I can't understand why we haven't revisited it.

That same NPR article I quoted suggested that while we could have/should have been developing technology to get us to the moon and beyond, we were more interested in other technologies and electronics that absorbed the knowledge we could have used to get back on the moon.

Hmmm... so Game Boy vs. another moon landing. Is that what it comes down to? :confused:

Rick Lee 07-21-2009 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dd74 (Post 4789335)

And why not use the moon as a staging center for Mars, then Mars for Jupiter, etc.
Mars is probably doable in my lifetime. Jupiter will come centuries later, if ever. Its moons might be doable, but I don't see how Jupiter is, as it has no surface. I can't imagine what kind of rocket it would take to escape Jupiter's gravitational pull if we could land there, nevermind dodging asteroids for the years-long ride to get there.

dd74 07-21-2009 09:16 AM
Of course, it's not like NASA hasn't done anything. I think landing the Mars rovers and actually getting footage back from them was a huge accomplishment.

At the same time, I'm still not clear what goes on inside the Space Station. Isn't it falling apart anyway? Not to mention, the Shuttles (I think only two remain) which are older than many major passenger jets still in service, correct?

jluetjen 07-21-2009 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dd74 (Post 4789394)
Of course, it's not like NASA hasn't done anything. I think landing the Mars rovers and actually getting footage back from them was a huge accomplishment.
Mars was easy. Getting pictures back from the surface of Titan was really something!!!

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...ensP7_c120.jpg

Measuring the edge of the solar wind at the edge of the solar system via the 32 year old Voyager mission is huge!
07.02.08 -- Scientists using data from NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft have observed the bubble of solar wind surrounding the solar system is not round, but has a squashed shape, according to recent data published as part of a series of papers in this week's (July 3) Nature.

The beginning of the transition zone between the heliosphere (the solar wind bubble) and the rest of interstellar space is known as the 'termination shock'. Scientists report that Voyager 2 crossed this boundary closer to the sun than expected, suggesting that the heliosphere in this region is pushed inward, closer to the sun, by an interstellar magnetic field. These findings help build up a picture of how the sun interacts with the surrounding interstellar medium.

Launched in 1977, two Voyager spacecraft were originally sent to fly by and observe Jupiter and Saturn. Voyager 1's flight path at Saturn bent it up and away from the ecliptic, the plane in which most planets orbit the sun. Voyager 2's trajectory continued in the ecliptic, allowing the spacecraft two more planetary encounters, the distant planets Uranus and then Neptune. The Voyager spacecraft are the most distant human-made objects in space -- with Voyager 1 more distant than Voyager 2.

The current mission of Voyager 2, and its sister Voyager 1, is to reach the edge of interstellar space.

dd74 07-21-2009 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluetjen (Post 4789427)
The current mission of Voyager 2, and its sister Voyager 1, is to reach the edge of interstellar space.[/INDENT]
What/where is the edge of Interstellar Space?
Can the Voyagers withstand that distance/travel?

m21sniper 07-21-2009 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jyl (Post 4789289)
There is a difference between developing new technology and hardware, and simply recreating past hardware based on old technology, especially when you have a exemplar to copy, some of the original data, and even some of the original people, and you know its going to work.

Look at the original program. NASA spent 2 years developing alternative rockets and finally selecting the Saturn V design (1960-1962) then they had to develop the Saturn V design. The first Saturn V flight was in 1967, 5 years later.

In our hypothetical, which is that the USA decides to recreate the Apollo missions with the same urgency and committment as before, you can skip the first 2 years, and you can greatly shorten the next 5 years.

Ares/Constellation is a brand new program being done on a constrained budget with no great sense of urgency.
We could not make a Saturn V rocket. The manufacturing base no longer exists, the blueprints are gone, the production facilities don't exist.

Much in the way we could not make a new Iowa Class battleship, or an F-14, even if we wanted to.

jyl 07-21-2009 10:38 AM
You're such a defeatist.

We can make the Ares I's J-2X main engine which is a variant of the Saturn V's J-2 main engine. I think we can make big cylindrical shells and big fuel tanks too. I also think we could manage to disassemble, measure, and copy the Smithsonian's Saturn V.

Better tell NASA to crap its programs for Ares I, IV, and especially V which will be bigger than Saturn V. Inform them that the manufacturing base no longer exists and that the production facilities can't be made. Apparently they've overlooked this.

m21sniper 07-21-2009 10:40 AM
I am not a defeatist, i'm a realist.

It would cost more to make a Saturn V than it would to design an entirely new rocket, which is exactly what NASA is doing.

jyl 07-21-2009 10:49 AM
Really? A huge part of the cost in a major aerospace program is the design, development, testing, engineering, solving novel problems and inventing new technology. The actual manufacturing of the vehicles is often a minority of the cost.

Look at the F22 - the total program cost is appx $65BN, but the total production cost of 187 planes is only about $26BN. Not sure why a major NASA program would be different.

In the "we recreate the Saturn V" hypothetical, most (or more) of the design, development, testing, engineering, solving novel problems and inventing new technology process has been done. Not so with the Ares I IV V programs, although they are planning to re-use technology, like the J-2 engine.

Jim Richards 07-21-2009 11:14 AM
I don't see any relevence to the "recreate the Saturn V" hypothetical. How quickly and effectively we do something is directed tied to how important it is to us and what level of resources we apply to solving the problem. We can easily do the Apollo program today, and would apply more modern technology to it. If the national goal was to accomplish it in 8-9 years from now, to be consistent with the "go to the moon and back" mandate of the 1960's, and we funded it appropriately, it will happen and be a success. Of this I have absolutely no doubt.

m21sniper 07-21-2009 12:35 PM
Easily he says...

BTW, the national goal IS to be there in 10 years...2020.

Pazuzu 07-21-2009 12:46 PM
All of the technology won't get us anywhere if we have no one who knows how to design a spacecraft, or how to deal with extreme situations on the fly.


Quote:
What/where is the edge of Interstellar Space?
It's where the heliopause is, the distance at which the Solar wind is counteracted by the ion fields from the rest of Space. Basically, about a lightyear out.

Jim Richards 07-21-2009 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by m21sniper (Post 4789878)
Easily he says...

BTW, the national goal IS to be there in 10 years...2020.
No doubt we can do it if we step up to the committment. Having a time goal without the corresponding level of funding to make it happen is not a recipe for success.

Jim Richards 07-21-2009 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 4789903)
All of the technology won't get us anywhere if we have no one who knows how to design a spacecraft, or how to deal with extreme situations on the fly.
Really, by that logic we couldn't get to the moon and back back in the 1960's. Who knew those things before they actually did it? No one. Of course, some would argue that the moon landing really happened in Hollywood, CA. :p

Pazuzu 07-21-2009 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Richards (Post 4789944)
Really, by that logic we couldn't get to the moon and back back in the 1960's. Who knew those things before they actually did it? No one. Of course, some would argue that the moon landing really happened in Hollywood, CA. :p
The men who rolled up their starched white shirts at Johnson and the Cape every day for years, staying up late designing things had abilities and talents that simply do not exist in NASA anymore. They had intuition, experience, skills, and lots of hard core flight time under their belts, and they ate breathed and slept Apollo.

We don't have that anymore. When the best that NASA can do is less than .500 in intact probes, all of which ran over budget, over time, and under design requirements...

We're not ready to put someone on a candle again. Ipods and GPS units in cars ain't gonna help us, our "modern technology" is all crap.

Jim Richards 07-21-2009 01:26 PM
NASA hired bright scientists and engineers then, and can hire them now. And there are plenty of companies that can/will/do support such an undertaking.

Seriously, the can't do people, like the naysayers here, would never get to sniff at such a project.

fingpilot 07-21-2009 01:29 PM
Mike, even worse than that I'm afraid.

All of our technology has gone to China, Japan, and the Taliban. They will use it against us or to accomplish the goals we set.

By the time it actually happens, we will be the USofC anyway.

Pazuzu 07-21-2009 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Richards (Post 4790000)
NASA hired bright scientists and engineers then, and can hire them now. And there are plenty of companies that can/will/do support such an undertaking.

Seriously, the can't do people, like the naysayers here, would never get to sniff at such a project.
Actually, a page back I said that SpaceX will be on the Moon before NASA.

NASA cannot do this. Someone else can, someone else who has the same balls as they did in the '60s. I also never meant to infer that we won't ever get there, I only think that anyone who says "we did it before, we have more tech now, so it'll be quick and easy!" is a fool. :) It would take at LEAST 10 years, with the kinda of budget devotion that was given Apollo for us to *possible* get to the Moon. Then, we really need to get to the Moon 6 times out of 7 tries, which is much harder.

Porsche-O-Phile 07-21-2009 01:34 PM
I believe JFK made his speech challenging us to put a man on the moon in May, 1961; it was accomplished in July, 1969 (a little over 8 years) including one MAJOR setback in the tragic Apollo 1 fire disaster that killed White, Chaffe and Grissom. Do I think we could get to the moon again in 10 years? Sure. Question of time, resources and money - and finding manufacturers to construct the space vehicle (good luck - everything's in frikkin' China or Taiwan now).

If every little nuance of government procurments/contracting was followed to the letter as it exists today and no adjustment was made for today's economy, it probably would never happen from a practical standpoint, but if somehow one could magically create the resolve and determination that existed in the 1960s - sure, I have no doubt we could get it done. Probably not with a Saturn V either - something much more modern, albeit built on some legacy technologies.

We COULD do it, given the current economy, it's questionable whether we SHOULD and whether it would ever make sense. I also don't see what it would accomplish - we've already been there. BTDT. What would we be proving exactly? If we really want to challenge ourselves to the level we did in the 1960s, we should try to get a crew to Mars and back by 2019. THAT would be a monumental challenge of the scale the 1960s early space program faced - with comparable risks and obstacles "indexed for inflation" so to speak...

m21sniper 07-21-2009 02:08 PM
We can just turn to Grumman to build them again.

Oh, wait....

tcar 07-21-2009 04:00 PM
...or cancel the F-22 program

...as they did today.

Tobra 07-21-2009 04:07 PM
No, we don't have the manufacturing capacity or collective will.

Schumi 07-21-2009 05:34 PM
I'll echo what others said and say that Voyager 1 is, while the least exciting, probably one of the most amazing spacecraft we've had, and it's still going. It will be going for longer than people will be around, possibly even after this planet is gone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1

The distance that it is away from us right now it nearly unfathomable. And it still sends back a signal saying it's there. The farthest man made object away. It will also stay the farthest made man object away unless we come up with some amazing new propulsion technology as right now it is going so fast and is so far that no other probe we've launched or we will even launch will pass it.

nut11 07-21-2009 05:51 PM
Just got in... NASA has, regrettably, become an ossified bureaucracy that is simply incapable now of putting a moon landing together. I believe it hit its apex of incompetence during the Sean O'Keeffe era manifested by his ill concieved decision to defer the needed Hubble fix. He subsequently changed his mind when pressured politically. It's all cyclical. Lean, mean, hungry and innovative during the 60's. Fat, overindulged and lazy during the 90s. The old age of the shuttle fleet is testament. There's not the dollars, leadership and inspired institutional thinking to make NASA the kthe kind of exciting organization it was in the 60s and 70s. That kind of recipe will come from the private sector. Look at GM...

87 blk coupe

jyl 07-21-2009 08:26 PM
F22 production will continue through appx 2012 until the previously planned 187 are built. What was rejected was a proposal to add about 7 more planes to the tail end of production.

Quote:
...or cancel the F-22 program <br>
<br>
...as they did today.

m21sniper 07-21-2009 10:41 PM
7 more desperately needed planes.

The current buy is utterly insufficient.

Mr.Puff 07-22-2009 12:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cairns (Post 4788950)
"NPR had an article about how really rather useless NASA is. That most of Apollo and other spacecraft as well as the space station, were comprised of independent efforts brought together by NASA."

That has to be the CRAPPIEST POST OF THE MONTH.

It's one of the most absurd statements I've ever read on here. What do you think an executive agency is supposed to do? NASA brought together diverse people and companies (like Werner Von Braun, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin) and, more than executed, they made incredibly significant accomplishments that have yet to be matched by any other nation.

They restored our national pride when the Russkies were kicking our butts. Then there were the little things like Hubble, an international space station, a space shuttle, MARS rovers, deep space vehicles and putting a few guys on the moon. I was in Huntsville watching the launch on TV last week- going from zero to 17,000 mph in less than ten minutes is pretty impressive in my book. Those folks at NASA actually do rocket science- and do it very well.

Did you have any idea that Endeavour (STS 127) is up there now? Much less what they're doing? That they're working on a Japanese experimental module- the largest ever attached to the Space Station? Did you know the current mission will set a record for the most humans in space at the same time in the same vehicle, the first time thirteen people will have been at the station at the same time and will also tie the record of thirteen people in space at any one time? Probably not- as I guess NPR forgot to mention that sh**t.

But to the original post- sadly I don't think it could be done today- we lack the national will to even rebuild ground zero. We can't even build a nuclear power plant or repair the interstates that Eisenhower built.

Instead we squander our money and will building immense self perpetuating bureacracies and bailing out failed institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and GM while catering to special interests like the ethanol, mortgage, safety and union lobbies. And of course fund utterly useless kaka like NPR.

Maybe you could tell us what NPR has ever done except suck tax $ for mouthing uninformed, biased opinions that masquerade as reporting?
:) I like your style sir.

Schumi 07-22-2009 02:43 AM
cairns- two thumbs, way up.


I'm glad someone brought up endeavor and the ISS right now. Right now there's 13 people in space. Sure, it's only 212 miles up, but it's space and it's not here. And those people are living there for months at a time and longer.


With the money spent bailing out failing companies for things they did wrong, we could have went to the moon and started setting up a scientific base there.

cairns 07-22-2009 05:04 AM
Thank you Gentlemen.

When you read posts like this:

"The men who rolled up their starched white shirts at Johnson and the Cape every day for years, staying up late designing things had abilities and talents that simply do not exist in NASA anymore. They had intuition, experience, skills, and lots of hard core flight time under their belts, and they ate breathed and slept Apollo.

We don't have that anymore. When the best that NASA can do is less than .500 in intact probes, all of which ran over budget, over time, and under design requirements..."

....knowing that thirteen of the best and brightest are up there as this is written making real and concrete scientific advances...

...well you've gotta wonder sbout some of these posters and if they listen to anything other than NPR or CNN. There's absolutely no sense of history or perspective (how many of the original astronauts had "hard core flight time" and why would that be an essential requirement for a mission specialist?) and no knowledge of the present (Paz- try googling "Kobi" and tell us how someone built that thing and got it up there without using ability, talent, intuition and skill).

I honestly think we could be back there in five years or less if we wanted to. But that would take leadership, inspiration and national will. That's lacking in Washington, DC, not Houston, Huntsville or Florida.

Jim Richards 07-22-2009 05:23 AM
Effective leadership, a clear mission & goals, and proper funding to execute. That's just the same formula for business success.

jyl 07-22-2009 06:29 AM
I think NASA is doing good work with robotic probes. The failure rate kind of makes sense considering these are all one-time missions. The manned missions had plenty of failures too, in the early test launches. With the probes, the mission is the test.

The trouble with the manned Moon or Mars mission is the purpose, or lack of same. In my gut I'd like to see us go to Mars, but my head keeps asking - why? What can a man do there, in however long he can stay on Mars after a year's flight, that is so much better than what a robotic explorer can do? Or, considering the cost of a manned Mars mission, 20 or 30 robotic explorers? As for returning to the Moon, even my gut isn't coming up with much enthusiasm for that one. What's the point?

Jim Richards 07-22-2009 06:31 AM
Mining & low gravity spaceport for kicking off planetary missions.

jyl 07-22-2009 07:32 AM
I need to learn more about moon mining. Any good links?

m21sniper 07-22-2009 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi (Post 4791153)
cairns- two thumbs, way up.


I'm glad someone brought up endeavor and the ISS right now. Right now there's 13 people in space. Sure, it's only 212 miles up, but it's space and it's not here. And those people are living there for months at a time and longer.


With the money spent bailing out failing companies for things they did wrong, we could have went to the moon and started setting up a scientific base there.
Or bought enough airplanes to actually defend our airspace.

BRPORSCHE 07-22-2009 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cairns (Post 4791271)
I honestly think we could be back there in five years or less if we wanted to. But that would take leadership, inspiration and national will. That's lacking in Washington, DC, not Houston, Huntsville or Florida.
Cairns,
What part of the Country do you live in? I am less then five miles from Johnson Space Center. Everyday I drive by the old Saturn V laying on it's side. My neighbor (Cassidy) is on this current mission and just performed a space walk.

I am proud that I live in this area, and everyone gets excited for new missions. I am not directly related to the space agenc in anyway, but you can definitely feel the pride in Clear Lake this week.

Pazuzu 07-22-2009 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cairns (Post 4791271)
....knowing that thirteen of the best and brightest are up there as this is written making real and concrete scientific advances...
Please, tell me what scientific advances are going on up there.


Quote:
...well you've gotta wonder sbout some of these posters and if they listen to anything other than NPR or CNN. There's absolutely no sense of history or perspective (how many of the original astronauts had "hard core flight time" and why would that be an essential requirement for a mission specialist?) and no knowledge of the present (Paz- try googling "Kobi" and tell us how someone built that thing and got it up there without using ability, talent, intuition and skill).
Hahahahaaa!!! I have worked on NASA projects, I did research using data from a NASA probe (which ran over time, over budget, and under system requirements...), I was funded by NASA grants for 4 years, and I have worked on (meaning, turning wrenches) 50 year old NASA equipment, which still runs. Don't tell me that I have no perspective on what that boondoggle government agency can or cannot do these days, I know quite well. NASA could not currently put a man on the Moon in 10 years. Privateers could, NASA could if they literally turned over 90% of their current administration and personnel, but not the way they are now.

jluetjen 07-22-2009 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pazuzu (Post 4791955)
Please, tell me what scientific advances are going on up there.
Actually, my vision is corrected from 20/200 to 20/20 during the day by only wearing contact lenses while I sleep. The polymers used for these lenses were developed in the "Space Hab" module.

Quote:
Paragon Blasts-Off Into Space
Research and Development at Paragon Vision Sciences continues with an entrepreneurial spirit that has carried the company into Space. Experiments aboard the NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Space Shuttle, Endeavor, launched in the summer of 1993, and two subsequent space shuttle missions, explored new Paragon contact lens polymers and ultimately led the Company to its proprietary HDS® Technology materials. The experiment was performed on SPACEHAB, a special module created for commercial experimentation. Paragon's leading material, Paragon HDS®, as well as Paragon Thin™ and Paragon HDS® 100, utilize HDS Technology and apply advanced silicone hyperpurification to the manufacturing process of contact lens materials. Both Paragon HDS and Paragon HDS 100 are the materials used to manufacture Paragon CRT® therapeutic contact lenses for non-surgical corneal reshaping.
So there is a scientific and technical breakthrough which has resulted from the Space Shuttle, and which has been developed into a commercial product which is making my life (and others like me) better.

The question is, would innovation like this be possible under BO's proposed health inititive. (Oops, that may be an OTPR comment! :rolleyes: )

Pazuzu 07-22-2009 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluetjen (Post 4792282)
So there is a scientific and technical breakthrough which has resulted from the Space Shuttle, and which has been developed into a commercial product which is making my life (and others like me) better.
I meant, right now, on the ISS. However, we could expand it to "what science has NASA done, itself, in the past, oh, 30 years?" Very little, most of it is independent labs (like your contacts), universities, and DoE projects. NASA suits think up some idea, then immediately pawn it off on whatever group is willing to sink too much money and time into it. NASA is just the check writer and bus driver for that independent research. All of the actual cool things that happen in space are the results of other people...the farther away you are from NASA while working on a project, the more likely it'll be cool and useful and succeed.


Those are cool contacts though!

cairns 07-22-2009 01:47 PM
Paz why don't you google the mission and see for yourself? You might actually learn something, develop a little perspective and gain some appreciation for the folks who are up there working their *ss*s off.

The way you're dissing NASA sounds like sour grapes to me. Generalized mindless kaka that has no basis in fact. Turn over 90%? Why not 87% Or 94.2%?

If NASA needs a 90% overhaul what would the rate be for DHS or the Labor Department? Is the number related to that "hard core flight time" you mentioned earlier? Do you have to be over 18 to see it?

BTW I live outside DC. Usually upwind thank goodness.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:17 AM.
Page 2 of 3 « Prev 1 2 3 Next »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.