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:

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.

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?

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.

What/where is the edge of Interstellar Space?
Can the Voyagers withstand that distance/travel?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Easily he says...

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

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...