Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Did We Lose the Technology to Go to the Moon? — Parallax Forums
«13

Comments

  • Bill HenningBill Henning Posts: 6,445
    edited 2014-08-09 20:55
    Worse, it was destroyed on purpose - all the Saturn V tooling etc.
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2014-08-09 21:18
    This is a rerun story.

    August is a slow news month ;-)
  • Dr_AculaDr_Acula Posts: 5,484
    edited 2014-08-09 22:25
    Great read - thanks!

    The linked article at the bottom is also fascinating http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/

    Grab a Saturn V engine, pull it to bits, scan it into a computer. No tool to undo a bolt? Make a new tool using electron beam melting (on page 2 of that article). They make it sound easy, but of course, these guys are rocket scientists!
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-08-10 05:34
    Nah, bin there, done that. Nobody wants to bother any more. It's dark and horrible out there and makes you sick.
  • abecedarianabecedarian Posts: 312
    edited 2014-08-10 06:50
    Heater. wrote: »
    Nah, bin there, done that. Nobody wants to bother any more. It's dark and horrible out there and makes you sick.
    And when you come back, jumping on the bed seems rather uneventful.
  • mindrobotsmindrobots Posts: 6,506
    edited 2014-08-10 07:31
    They had to strike the Hollywood sound stage they used for the moon landings for the news Mars projects.....jeez, you can't keep all that production space tied up when your ratings are going down!
  • prof_brainoprof_braino Posts: 4,313
    edited 2014-08-10 08:03
    Did We Lose the Technology to Go to the Moon?

    I'm pretty sure its over then in the corner next to or underneath all the stuff I bought off Ebay from erco's suggestions. But until I dig it out, yes, it remains lost.

    I'll get to it, soon as I finish ooh, shiney....
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2014-08-10 11:48
    I'll get to it, soon as I finish ooh, shiney....


    Shiney .... Jeez, now I feel like a crow. LOL.
  • rod1963rod1963 Posts: 752
    edited 2014-08-10 12:58
    Worse, we lost the tooling, plans and the engineering expertise. The men who designed and built that and the first shuttles are long gone.

    Who cares though, we now make computer hygiene products like the Ipod and Ipad produced in overseas sweatshops that wow the ignorant and spoiled youth with Facebook and youtube videos of angry birds.

    We've come a long ways baby.
  • vanmunchvanmunch Posts: 568
    edited 2014-08-10 17:51
    jazzed wrote: »
    This is a rerun story.

    August is a slow news month ;-)

    100 years ago August was a slow news month too... :)
  • mindrobotsmindrobots Posts: 6,506
    edited 2014-08-10 17:57
    vanmunch wrote: »
    100 years ago August was a slow news month too... :)

    So it's like, "On this day in history, nothing happened either." :lol:
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2014-08-10 18:04
    Well, the first question to answer is "why"?

    If it's just to go to collect more moon rocks, a robotic vehicle could do that, and it wouldn't need to be nearly as complex as a Saturn V, LEM, and other hardware required to keep a crew of humans alive. If it's to start a small colony/space station, then the Saturn V is the wrong launch vehicle. With that old technology it would cost trillions and decades to get enough materials up there to get things to a point of even modest sustainability. Far better to do things like rail guns to shoot packages of material into an orbit around the moon, then go through the process of getting it down. No air, it's all by retro-rocket. Something clever, new, and fun is needed.

    We may have lost the technology to build a single Saturn V engine, but that doesn't mean we've lost the technology to explore space. Every month some country launches a successful space vehicle, and the cost of doing it gets lower all the time.
  • frank freedmanfrank freedman Posts: 1,983
    edited 2014-08-10 18:29
    I am going to venture a guess that 1) you are a Robert Heinlein fan, and 2) that you probably read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" more than a couple of times..............


    Well, the first question to answer is "why"?

    If it's just to go to collect more moon rocks, a robotic vehicle could do that, and it wouldn't need to be nearly as complex as a Saturn V, LEM, and other hardware required to keep a crew of humans alive. If it's to start a small colony/space station, then the Saturn V is the wrong launch vehicle. With that old technology it would cost trillions and decades to get enough materials up there to get things to a point of even modest sustainability. Far better to do things like rail guns to shoot packages of material into an orbit around the moon, then go through the process of getting it down. No air, it's all by retro-rocket. Something clever, new, and fun is needed.

    We may have lost the technology to build a single Saturn V engine, but that doesn't mean we've lost the technology to explore space. Every month some country launches a successful space vehicle, and the cost of doing it gets lower all the time.
  • Pharseid380Pharseid380 Posts: 26
    edited 2014-08-12 04:11
    I read a book on the British hypersonic research program and one researcher said that from conversations with his U.S. counterpart, he learned that in the race to convert ICBM technology into launch vehicles for NASA, they had lost most of their data on their own hypersonic research program. So all the loses weren't directly related to the moon project.
  • OppaErichOppaErich Posts: 48
    edited 2014-08-12 04:26
    vanmunch wrote: »
    100 years ago August was a slow news month too... :)
    I don't think so, WW 1 had just started.
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2014-08-12 09:44
    I am going to venture a guess that 1) you are a Robert Heinlein fan, and 2) that you probably read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" more than a couple of times..

    Funnily enough, never read that book, though I was a fan of Heinlein, in the days when I had time to read!

    During the 1960s and 1970s NASA floated numerous concepts as they slowly came to realize the Apollo mission would not be replaced by continued dollars. So they took lots of ideas for moon exploration, and proposed them, to see what would stick (nothing ever has, so far). I still have a full set of 70s NASA slides (provided for republication) of L5 and other space colony ideas. Besides the retro factor, the artwork is super cool!
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-08-12 09:58
    Gordon,

    You do, are they published some place, should you put them up somewhere? Fascinating.
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2014-08-12 10:08
    Heater. wrote: »
    You do, are they published some place, should you put them up somewhere? Fascinating.

    They're everywhere already. Google or Bing image search ('nasa L5 space colony' etc) and you'll turn up loads:

    http://www.stayinwonderland.com/2012/01/retro-sci-fi-art-part4-10-retro-futurism-images/

    The NASA Web site probably has them too, but good luck searching through their quadrillion images. But it's worth it.
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2014-08-12 10:17
    Okay, found 'em. (That was easy!)

    http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/70sArtHiRes/70sArt/art.html

    All of them are great, but for whatever reason, the ones by concept artist Rick Guidice lure you in, and make you imagine you're really there.

    I first saw these in a groundbreaking color book by Gerard K. O'Neill, who was something of the Carl Sagan for space exploration. I lost my copy years ago, but with a good color printer you can make your own images for hanging up in your office.
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2014-08-12 10:23
    Heinlien is easily available on line for reading. I can't get anything in science fiction in print in Taiwan. It seems the subject is just too far out for the Taiwanese English language readership. It is very odd, as I found Heinlien easy to get 2nd hand in Chiang Mai, Thailand (they have some really good 2nd English bookstores).

    As far as the Saturn V rocket...
    I just may be that having built one, we may just have learned that we really might do it better and more cheaply in another way. We can't really lose technology... the knowledge evolves. Space will be there whenever mankind wants to explore it.

    I am more upset with the way journalism panders to drama and misinformation these days. Somehow, that has lost some of its objectivity. I'd love to see more proactive reporting helping to find a good agenda through anticipating what kind of issues might arise and a lot less reactive journalism.
  • GenetixGenetix Posts: 1,754
    edited 2014-08-12 13:26
    NASA also lost many of the mission data tapes because they overwrote the old data years later.

    We all know that the money that NASA spends on research comes back many times over in the form of derivative technologies so why is it we can spend Trillions of dollars on weapons systems that may never be used but NASA is lucky just to get a few Billion every year.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-08-12 13:44
    Genetix,
    We all know that the money that NASA spends on research comes back many times over in the form of derivative technologies
    I hear that a lot.

    Actually I don't know any such thing.

    The oft quoted examples are the materials required to make non-stick frying pans and velcrow. Both of which are Smile.

    Do you have any other, better, examples?

    On the other hand, the endless pursuit of perfecting ways to smite your enemies by the military has resulted in a lot of useful stuff we have today. Like the internet for example.

    Don't forget, the whole "let's go to the moon" thing was driven by defense. In the dark days of the cold war.
  • mindrobotsmindrobots Posts: 6,506
    edited 2014-08-12 14:11
    tang.jpg

    Sales of Tang were poor until NASA used it on John Glenn's Mercury flight,[3] and subsequent Gemini missions. Since then, it was closely associated with the U.S. manned spaceflight program, leading to the misconception that Tang was invented for the space program.[4][5]

    Tang was used by some early NASA manned space flights.[6] In 1962, when Mercury astronaut John Glenn conducted eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu,[2] and was also used during some Gemini flights. In 2013, Buzz Aldrin stated that "Tang sucks".[7]
    The creator of Tang, William A. Mitchell, also invented Pop Rocks, Cool Whip, a form of instant-set Jell-O, and other convenience foods.[8]


    supporting your cr@p theory!!!
    380 x 500 - 98K
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-08-12 14:39
    mindrobots,

    Is that my Krapp theory you are supporting?

    Sounds to me like William A. Mitchell is responsible for a good share of obesity, diabetes, heart failure, malnutrition and general ill health in the USA. And consequent early deaths.

    If he is still alive he should be facing some kind of charge of crimes against humanity.
  • GenetixGenetix Posts: 1,754
    edited 2014-08-12 15:06
    Heater, scratch resistant lenses and lens coatings, all kinds of materials, and if it were for NASA's use of ICs we might not had the PC revolution of the late 70's.
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2014-08-12 15:59
    There's a good Wiki page on NASA spinoff technology that's been fairly well vetted. It lists only some of them:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

    They tend to be specialized, but still there are a few basic concepts/patents in there that have created whole new product lines. It's true that NASA didn't invent the products Tang, Velcro, or Teflon, but they did create, support, or fund variations on the themes, which is possibly where some of the urban legend comes from. For example, they funded resources for the development of powdered lubricants, for things things like bushings, that are used instead of Teflon coatings. (Talking about the industrial coatings, not cookware.)

    NASA themselves publishes information related to their spinoffs, as required by law for public agencies like NASA, and provides cooperative licensing structures for those technologies it holds a patent interest in:

    http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinfaq.htm

    Not widely known, but the rocker bogie used on the Mars rovers was covered (its expired now) by a NASA patent. As it should be. It's brilliant in both function and execution. There are numerous companies using that design, and those companies directly benefited from this NASA-created invention.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2014-08-12 17:00
    Hmm...that rocker bogie on the Mars rover looks awfully familiar. Could it be slight variation on what they had on steam locomotives before any of us was born?

    I have to check into the rest of the spin offs linked to.
  • Bill HenningBill Henning Posts: 6,445
    edited 2014-08-12 18:07
    We don't need Saturn V.

    We need Orion!
    Funnily enough, never read that book, though I was a fan of Heinlein, in the days when I had time to read!

    During the 1960s and 1970s NASA floated numerous concepts as they slowly came to realize the Apollo mission would not be replaced by continued dollars. So they took lots of ideas for moon exploration, and proposed them, to see what would stick (nothing ever has, so far). I still have a full set of 70s NASA slides (provided for republication) of L5 and other space colony ideas. Besides the retro factor, the artwork is super cool!
  • Bill HenningBill Henning Posts: 6,445
    edited 2014-08-12 18:08
    Actually, for cheapest eventual cost to orbit, we need space elevators.
  • msrobotsmsrobots Posts: 3,709
    edited 2014-08-12 19:04
    Actually, for cheapest eventual cost to orbit, we need space elevators.

    Exactly.

    It would be the tallest building on the planet also!

    Enjoy!

    Mike
Sign In or Register to comment.