Could the Apollo program be done today?
 

I'm watching the programs about the Apollo space program and I am still hugely impressed with what was accomplished. I think the Saturn V rocket is a staggering piece of engineering. Everything that was done at the time was a total unknown, everything was an enormous risk. Men put their lives on the line for a challenge that was really for not much more than just to see if we could do it. So I was struck with a sobering thought...

Imagine that none of that had ever been done and someone turned around today and suggested that we put a man on the moon. Think of all the objections we'd hear from whichever political party wasn't the one who suggested it, all health and safety issues, environmental protests, all the crap and red tape. Despite the technology we have now, do you honestly think it would happen?

Should be no problem these days, especially since we just print more money whenever we need it now. I think my Blackberry has more memory than what they were using in an entire room those days. The math and physics haven't changed. We have better rockets, metallurgy, synthetics and rocket fuels now. Should be old hat. But like always, these big things are more a matter of political will than anything else.

Nope. Could not be done.

No one knows how to use a slide rule anymore.

Where would we find a 64K ROM computer?

How would we keep Michelle from wanting to be the first black woman in space; and how would we design a 15G seat that would 'accomodate' Hillary's butt and hairdo?

In theory, the space shuttle program will be "replaced" with a technology more resembling the Saturn Rockets, due to a (comparatively) lower cost, and higher payload capacity. More "Bang for the buck."

Yes, but the Saturn V rocket would be plastered with sponsor decals like a NASCAR car is! :)

We actually don't have better rockets, and currently from what i understand about the subject...no, it could not be done.

Nope, nothing is manufactured here anymore. The quality control issues getting something that complicated built correctly from the Chinese would make it a production impossibility.

What do you mean, could we build the Saturn V, Apollo craft, LEM, and go to the moon today, assuming it hadn't been done in the 1960s?

Technologically, of course it could be done. All of the science and technology that went into Apollo is still available, and much of it has been greatly improved.

The cost would be high, but relative to some other expenditures, not staggering. NASA's entire annual budget ($17BN) is about 1/4 the cost of the F22 program ($65BN). The projected budget for Project Constellation ($35BN) is 1/2 the F22's cost. So since we can afford the F22, we can afford to go to the moon.

The question is, would we today consider it high enough "priority" to go to the moon?

I think "yes" - if you assume the moon had never been visited before, the drive to be first to get there would be just as strong as it was in 1960.

The only reason there is, shall we say, lukewarm enthusiasm about returning to the moon today and/or going to Mars is precisely because we have already been to the moon, multiple times, and people don't necessarily see that such big benefits came from it. BTDT and so on.

...but just think how much cheaper it would be. You could sell these things at Walmart. Everyone could have one....

When can we discuss the conspiracy part of the topic? :confused:



KT

Sure. Just think about how digital technology has advanced... Special FX is sooo much better now. Huge studios to film in...

Yes, we'd just have to do the filming in Toronto, instead of Burbank.

Actually, I wonder if the EPA would make NASA do an environmental impact study on the proposed moon landing sites before granting the go ahead for such a mission.

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.

The article also said the Space Shuttle was originally supposed to fly people to already-created space stations. It was really just an intergalactic bus, but was turned into a parts hauler for the space station.

So in answer about Apollo today, sure, it could be done; but by _______________, which is a private company.

As is, I think Obama might seek a moratorium on further space exploration. That surely gives us something less to look forward to. :rolleyes:

As to relying on NASA to do it, don't bet on that during our lifetime.

No, because it doesn't meet ADA requirements.

No. The environmental impact studies would take at least 20 years.

Oh, and the program would have been shut down after the first fatality and backrupted by the resulting lawsuits.

The cost of the materials used is significantly less today than when the Apollo program was operating. We have Carbon Fibre and Titanium bicycles for god's sake.

The "ZON" approach is the correct way. Smaller rockets, lift to orbit, assemble in orbit (these things can connect themselves with human help only for problems). Fueling done the same way.

The real objection I see is the same objection that people like Walter Mondale had to the program. Many people in this country think we should spend the money on them instead of Space Program. We should feed homeless, pay for Medical care, etc, instead of exploring space.

Really, it comes back to the "Give a Fish" vs. "Teach to Fish" issue. Our government shouldn't be in the "Give a fish" camp.

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.

+1

The space program has the potential to lead to new technology developments that benefit US businesses and consumers. It's also a jobs program in that it employs many in both government and private industry. It just isn't a direct handout to people, so, it does take more restraint than just (printing and) giving away money to the masses.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

+1

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

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?

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.

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.

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


KT

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).

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

Money and time.

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

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.

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.

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. SmileWavy

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. :D