Could the Apollo program be done today?

[jyl]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

There is no rocket with the required thrust to get to the moon today, that is not a paper design.

So again, based on my understanding, nope, we could not do it again today. 10 years from today perhaps.

Of course we couldn't get back to the moon overnight. But if we placed the same priority on getting to the moon today, as we did in the 1960s, we could get there in a few years. For example, it would't take a decade to simply re-create Saturn V.

[74-911]

Originally Posted by jyl

Of course we couldn't get back to the moon overnight. But if we placed the same priority on getting to the moon today, as we did in the 1960s, we could get there in a few years. For example, it would't take a decade to simply re-create Saturn V.

IIRC when Bush proposed going to Mars and talk of the Saturn V came up, NASA discovered that most of the blueprints for the Saturn V had been destroyed.

[jyl]

Is a staging point on the moon better than a staging point in earth orbit?

Can you assemble a Mars craft on the moon (gravity, dust) any better than you can in orbit? You can't get anything there - everything still has to be brought from earth. Seems like getting everything to the moon and supporting people there would eat up a lot of energy and resources.

Originally Posted by Z-man

Taking that concept a step further - the moon could be used as a staging area for missions to Mars. It costs nothing to keep things like jet fuel cool there. (Maybe too cool?). Delevop a station there - and at 1/6tht the gravity, it would require less energy to get a spaceship off the surface and heading towards Mars.

So essentially, the moon would house the 'outer' space station. Astronauts would take a Space Shuttle to our space stations that are in lower orbit - then take another smaller vehicle to the moon, where their Mars explorer/space vehicle would launch them to Mars and beyond.

Yes, as a kid, I was mezmerized by the space program - I had a National Geographic poster of all the astronauts and their missions hanging in my room for years and years... Neil Armstrong was my hero!

-Z-man.

[The Gaijin]

The Apollo goals were pretty straightforward. Go to the moon, walk around, collect a few rocks and get back safely. We would need larger goals to go back there and beyond. But I think they exist and we should have manned and unmanned programs going forward. Compared with the rest of the budget, all this comes cheap.

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by 74-911

IIRC when Bush proposed going to Mars and talk of the Saturn V came up, NASA discovered that most of the blueprints for the Saturn V had been destroyed.

The TV show "Mythbusters" was working up a model of something off of old NASA blueprints. For the LM, I think..

[jyl]

Originally Posted by 74-911

IIRC when Bush proposed going to Mars and talk of the Saturn V came up, NASA discovered that most of the blueprints for the Saturn V had been destroyed.

So what? There is one sitting at Johnson Space Center. Get out your measuring tape.

[Jim Richards]

+1

John, you sound like a "Can Do" person.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by jyl

Of course we couldn't get back to the moon overnight. But if we placed the same priority on getting to the moon today, as we did in the 1960s, we could get there in a few years. For example, it would't take a decade to simply re-create Saturn V.

I bet it would take us at least as long to get there if we got GO word today as it did back then, and most likely, appreciably longer.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I bet it would take us at least as long to get there if we got GO word today as it did back then, and most likely, appreciably longer.

Do you have any specific knowledge to support your bet, or is it a gut feeling?

[fingpilot]

Well, if getting a balanced budget is any guide, I'd say it's a guess based somewhere just south of the gut.

And a very good one too.

[m21sniper]

Well the modern Saturn, the Aries won't be ready until 2020, for one, and they've already been working on it for some years.

On top of it, look how long it takes to get military programs from drawing board to deployment. Oft cases, it takes 20 years or more (some over 30)- and these are high priority systems that are far, far less expensive and complex.

Finally, it's government....

I have no doubt whatsoever that it would take at least as long as Apollo took. At least.

[trekkor]

Huge waste of time and money... Colossal actually.


KT

[RPKESQ]

I am surprised there are so many negative opinions on this subject. I suspect many do not realize the initial stimulus for the space race (for that is what it was) was fear. Fear that the Russians would gain the military (technology) high ground. Oh the public was sold a bill of goods about good old American values, but the government knew exactly what it was really about.

Without the Cold War, the manned Moon landings would not have happened. Period. Full stop.

We as a nation are perfectly capable to return to the Moon or go to Mars. Sure it will take time to build the required infrastructure. It did before. But are we capable of it? No question at all. Is there a good reason to develop manned exploration? Not that I have discovered. Robotic ability is increasing at an rapid pace the last few years.

Does any Nation have the political will to pursue manned missions to the Moon or Mars without the threat of a technology race induced by military threats? Possibly, but I would predict a consortium of Nations is more plausible than an individual Nation.

China, Russia, India, Japan, France, Britain, Germany and the US are all capable of developing a manned Moon landing missions alone. But I doubt that unless a block of past adversaries attempt it, none will attempt it alone (possible exception of China).

[IROC]

All it would take is money. From a technical standpoint, we're doing far more challenging things these days than the Apollo program.

[m21sniper]

Money and time.

[piscator]

Can't we just go in the P-car? There's quite a few Pelican Porsches with plenty of thrust!

[jyl]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Well the modern Saturn, the Aries won't be ready until 2020, for one, and they've already been working on it for some years.

On top of it, look how long it takes to get military programs from drawing board to deployment. Oft cases, it takes 20 years or more (some over 30)- and these are high priority systems that are far, far less expensive and complex.

Finally, it's government....

I have no doubt whatsoever that it would take at least as long as Apollo took. At least.

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.

[Pazuzu]

Who's going to do all of this designing? You'd be hard pressed to find 20 people with the qualifications and skillset that the average Apollo era engineer had in NASA. These were people who knew innately what was required to put men on the Moon. No computer simulations to tell them, no grant proposals, just what was going to be required of each one of them.

There would have to be a complete shift in NASA before they could put another ship up there, they simply don't have the skills. Space-X is going to do it first, because they still know how to run a project that complex from beginning to end.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by cairns

"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?

Maybe you should go directly to the source and write an editorial response to NPR. It would be a lot more productive than blathering your ire here.

[dd74]

My main question about the moon landing: how much of it was luck that the mission was successful at all?

Technology: what was the time line between from starting the design process to landing on the moon? How many years did it take?

I can't see why the moon landing can't be repeated. Even if the original designs were destroyed, newer technology must exist.

And why not use the moon as a staging center for Mars, then Mars for Jupiter, etc.

Hell, Stanley Kubrick has already been to (a moon of) Jupiter, and at that one year earlier than Armstrong's landing on the moon.