NASA Technology Going In Reverse?

[apollo_deception]

how, if we landed on the moon 40 some odd yrs ago, can we not build a rocket to land and take off again? technology doesnt go in reverse. we have laptops and ipads today because technology improves as time goes by. with nasa however, they managed to go in reverse...how can that be?

[Allan F]

Simple. Politics and funding. Those who control the cash flow, control what the cash is used for.

[Grashtel]

how, if we landed on the moon 40 some odd yrs ago, can we not build a rocket to land and take off again? technology doesnt go in reverse. we have laptops and ipads today because technology improves as time goes by. with nasa however, they managed to go in reverse...how can that be?

Because rockets have much worse performance than aircraft making a rocket that can land and take off pointless for use on Earth and due to politics and cost we haven't gone back to the Moon where such would be needed.

[beedarko]

how, if we landed on the moon 40 some odd yrs ago, can we not build a rocket to land and take off again? technology doesnt go in reverse. we have laptops and ipads today because technology improves as time goes by. with nasa however, they managed to go in reverse...how can that be?

Sigh...



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

"The highest temperature that aluminium could sustain over the life of the aircraft was 127 °C (261 °F), which limited the top speed to Mach 2.02"





http://deepseachallenge.com/the-expedition/mariana-trench/

"The first and only time humans descended into the Challenger Deep was more than 50 years ago. In 1960, Jacques Piccard and Navy Lt. Don Walsh reached this goal in a U.S. Navy submersible, a bathyscaphe called the Trieste"

[Peter B]

G'day apollo_deception, and welcome to the Apollohoax forum.

how, if we landed on the moon 40 some odd yrs ago, can we not build a rocket to land and take off again?

Depending on who you mean by we, we can. The DC-X is one which comes to mind:

If you mean the Lunar Module specifically, well, there was no more need for it once the Apollo program had finished.

This technology is highly specialised, and if there's no future need for it, it goes out of use. If long enough time passes, then the people who designed it die, and their personal knowledge dies with them.

technology doesnt go in reverse. we have laptops and ipads today because technology improves as time goes by. with nasa however, they managed to go in reverse...how can that be?

Actually technology does go in reverse on occasions. Concorde is a prime example.

To expand on what Allan F said, the US government gave NASA a shedload of money and a specific task - land a man on the Moon and safely return him to the Earth, and do it by the end of the 1960s. NASA and its contractors developed a heap of technology to achieve that task, and they achieved it.

What happened then?

Did Nixon and the Congress say, "Well done, here's some more money, now go and do the same thing with Mars"?

No. They said, "Well done, you've achieved the task you were set. Now here's a massive budget cut because we need the money and it won't cost us many votes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA-budget-federal.jpg shows how the budget has shrunk over the years: around 1% of the US budget from President Ford to President Bush I, and declining to about 0.5% of the budget during the Clinton and Bush II presidencies.

Very simply, if you don't have the money, you can't maintain all the technology you previously developed.

[raven]

http://deepseachallenge.com/the-expedition/mariana-trench/

"The first and only time humans descended into the Challenger Deep was more than 50 years ago. In 1960, Jacques Piccard and Navy Lt. Don Walsh reached this goal in a U.S. Navy submersible, a bathyscaphe called the Trieste"

Actually, only last year, someone did return to Challenger Deep, though it is still a pretty good example as it was longer than since Apollo.
Another example is that no one besides NASA has ever flown, manned, a reusable orbital spaceplane. And when was the last time anyone built a really big rigid airship? The recent Zeppelin NT is actually a semi-rigid.

[Obviousman]

In addition:

The SR-71 flew Mach 3; we have no Mach 3 capable aircraft today.

The X-15 reached Mach 6; we have no manned aircraft capable of reaching Mach 6 today.

Were the SR-71 and X-15 both faked?

(Hint: No, idiot!)

[onebigmonkey]

Yes, of course we can.

[Glom]

It's not that it can't be done. It's that there is no current product available because no-one will spring for it.

[geo7863]

Well your user name here 'Apollo_Deception' clearly states to all the you don't believe the moon landings ever happened, so regardless of the answers to a particularly ridiculous and naïve question, you probably still wont believe!

So what is the point of your question? surely you could have found a more technically challenging question (which have ALL been de-bunked anyhow!) to test the minds of the sheeple whom NASA/CIA have duped!

It is clear to anyone with an iota of common sense that the reason there hasn't been another moon landing is funding. I read somewhere that as much as 40% of the worlds population do not believe the moon landings happened#, I am sure that if all you HB's donated say between $1000-100,000 (Heiwa has a Million to donate* so I am sure there must be more like him with enough dosh for this worthy cause) to NASA they would probably love to do it again!



# cant find that info now, Wikipedia...the doyen of public knowledge.... has 20-25% but in certain age groups/countries

*According to Heiwa that is!

[Jason Thompson]

how, if we landed on the moon 40 some odd yrs ago, can we not build a rocket to land and take off again?

We can, but only if someone produces the funds needed to do it.

technology doesnt go in reverse.

No, but it does sometimes stagnate or disappear due to lack of funding or interest. We still have no aircraft that can beat the SR-71 for speed and altitude records, and that was built in the 60s, just like Apollo.

we have laptops and ipads today because technology improves as time goes by.

Comparing consumer technology with the highly specialised technology of lunar landings is not valid. We have laptops and ipads today because there has been massive consumer demand for smaller, lighter, faster computers that can do ever more stuff to make life easier for the man on the street. There's as much funding there as the average joe is willing to spend on something cool that makes his life easier. That turns out to be a lot of cash. For NASA there is as much funding there as the US congress is willing to offer, and that largely depends on how much of his tax money the average joe wants to see spent on things like exploring the Moon or setting up bases on Mars. That turns out to be not an awful lot.

with nasa however, they managed to go in reverse...how can that be?

They haven't gone in reverse, they simply have not advanced as quickly and as far as some might have hoped. There is also the consideration that the basics of rocket design haven't changed. Whatever else you do you essentially need to have a huge fuel tank with a rocket engine on the bottom. The basic design of the car hasn't changed over a century because whatever other improvements are made you still need an engine, wheels and a place for people to sit.

In short, we could do it again, but no-one wants to put forward the cash to get it going properly any more.

[geo7863]

They haven't gone in reverse, they simply have not advanced as quickly and as far as some might have hoped. There is also the consideration that the basics of rocket design haven't changed. Whatever else you do you essentially need to have a huge fuel tank with a rocket engine on the bottom. The basic design of the car hasn't changed over a century because whatever other improvements are made you still need an engine, wheels and a place for people to sit.

And that, as you have stated, is because they haven't the unlimited funding that would allow them to advance in leaps and bounds!

If NASA did get the funding, why couldn't they just replicate the Saturn V/Apollo set-up again? it worked the first time around so with the new computing/guidance system/materials technology of the last 40 odd years it is bound to work again.

It reminds me of the Harrier jump-jet, scrapped by the British Government for a hugely expensive and very, very, late new VTOL design! I have heard people, who worked on the technical side of keeping the Harriers flying in recent combat missions, say that the airframes were knackered! But the technology wasn't knackered! Why not just build brand new (but upgraded)airframes?....why not build a brand new (but upgraded) Saturn/Apollo?

[Mag40]

how, if we landed on the moon 40 some odd yrs ago, can we not build a rocket to land and take off again? technology doesnt go in reverse. we have laptops and ipads today because technology improves as time goes by. with nasa however, they managed to go in reverse...how can that be?

The Saturn V cost about a billion a launch in the late 1960-72 era. Go figure how much that will cost now and then how it will benefit America. Then explain how it is going to be paid for.

That technology has allowed NASA to explore the whole solar system and reach every planet, a far more purposeful goal in terms of space exploration and objectives for advancement.

[Jason Thompson]

If NASA did get the funding, why couldn't they just replicate the Saturn V/Apollo set-up again? it worked the first time around so with the new computing/guidance system/materials technology of the last 40 odd years it is bound to work again.

Firstly you can't simultaneously replicate a 40 year old setup and incorporate the advances. Different systems will have different assembly requirements that will impact other areas.

But the main reason would be that no-one wants to replicate Apollo, they want to advance and do things like stay on the Moon for months. The Apollo setup won't allow that.

[Zakalwe]

Not only can technology go into reverse, it can go down the wrong path. Witness the VHS vs. Betamax debate. Betamax was superior in a lot of ways, yet VHS won.