NASA Technology Going In Reverse?

[raven]

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.

Just shows that technological superiority is not the only thing.
I personally think our phobia of all things nuclear is really stagnating our space exploration potential.

[geo7863]

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.

This is all purely hypothetical (obviously), I know that there would never be a mandate to replicate previous missions exactly as they occurred the first time around!

But say Congress said "OK here's the funding for one more mission, just one, to get up there and bring artefacts back from the previous missions just to prove we went in the first place", (not going to happen obviously but humour me!) Why can you not replicate the Apollo set-up with todays technology?

Obviously I don't mean replicate exactly 100% (in which case perhaps replicate is the wrong word to use) but the basic design doesn't need to change does it?.....maybe it does I am not a metallurgist, rocket designer, or technology specialist in any way shape or form!

I bet it can be made a lot lighter now than back then. Get rid of all those interior Aluminium panels in the Command module/Lunar module and replace with Carbon fibre, get rid of all the analogue instruments and replace with a 'glass cockpit'. Surely the computing 'brain' is smaller and lighter (and far more powerful) now. I don't know much about telecommunications but there must a lighter system now than back then? Perhaps there are better ablative materials than were originally used.... the list can go on!

Obviously I know it is not as simple as I make it sound, I am not so daft as to believe it is. But I beleive it could be done...given the funding...which as we know isn't going to happen!

[Echnaton]

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 assignment of a direction to technological change is largely arbitrary.  Despite the propaganda we were fed as kids, there is no unidirectional "march of progress." The assignment of direction can be valid in describing progress in reaching a specific goal.  However there are many goals in life and technology may progress toward one goal while it undermining other goals. 

Currently there is no goal of going to the moon, in the sense there was for the Apollo program so you are invoking a measure of progress that does not exist.    You are simply begging the question that such a goal exists.  That is logically invalid.

[Echnaton]

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.

Just shows that technological superiority is not the only thing.

No, it shows that choosing the technology that will be commercially successful is difficult.   The fact is that VHS was a better technology because in the trade off between image quality and run time, people prefered longer run times.  Better meeting the needs of the customer made VHS the "superior" technology.

I also suspect that there was a strong industrial component as well because Betamax was a Sony invention, and the rest of the consumer electronics industry did not want to be beholden to Sony for their future.  A focus on expensive proprietary technologies is among the reasons Sony is an also ran in the consumer electronics business today.

[anywho]

Didn't Bush say he was going back (pity they couldn't send him) and pump money into it?

I find it more counter intuitive that even the early apollo manned trips around the moon have never been repeated, the ones where they never landed.

Let's face it, man has been restricted to low earth orbit since the much disputed apollo missions and will for the foreseeable future.

[Grashtel]

I bet it can be made a lot lighter now than back then. Get rid of all those interior Aluminium panels in the Command module/Lunar module and replace with Carbon fibre, get rid of all the analogue instruments and replace with a 'glass cockpit'. Surely the computing 'brain' is smaller and lighter (and far more powerful) now. I don't know much about telecommunications but there must a lighter system now than back then? Perhaps there are better ablative materials than were originally used.... the list can go on!

The problem is that those changes result in the need to make more changes, and then those changes need still more changes to accommodate them, and so on.  This very quickly reaches the point where you end up with vehicles that bear no more than a vague resemblance to those used in Apollo and because of all the needed redesigns cost more and take longer than starting fresh would have.  And if you decide not to update the design you then run into the problem that the tools to make a Saturn V no longer exist and the engineers who know all the ins and outs of the technology needed to build it have either retired or are dead making it extremely impractical to do.

In your scenario of "one last Moon mission" unless NASA was forced to replicate Apollo they would make use of modern rockets and vehicles from the start rather than trying to update 40+ year old designs.  Either using the SLS to launch an Apollo style mission (and actually give the SLS a reason to exist other than political pork), using Space-X Falcon Heavys to launch a mission that is assembled in LEO before going to the Moon, or using some other modern design.

[Echnaton]

Didn't Bush say he was going back (pity they couldn't send him) and pump money into it?

Is this the same as the Apollo initiative?  If so, how?  Or were there political goals being met that took priority?

I find it more counter intuitive that even the early apollo manned trips around the moon have never been repeated, the ones where they never landed.

Really grasping for straws , aren't we? What is "counter intuitive" about not repeating test flights that have accomplished their missions?  What purpose do you propose that a crewed orbital trip to the moon would serve that a probe could not?  Please provide the costs for each and the relative advantage of the higher costs of sending a crewed mission. 

Let's face it, man has been restricted to low earth orbit since the much disputed apollo missions and will for the foreseeable future.

Yes and no.  First the no.  There is no dispute about the authenticity of the Apollo missions except in the minds of a few know nothings.  The yes, human space flight is currently restricted to low earth orbit by choice,  But the exploration of space beyond low earth orbit continues with non-crewed spacecraft.  We have chosen one course over another for various reasons. 

[apollo_deception]

ya i can see now what you mean by "funding"
thats why i strongly believe in private space explorers, nasa is the governments baby who is solely dependent on them for money.....maybe if we can get a good private corp. to do it then its possible we can go (back) to the moon?
what do you guys feel about the Musk Dynasty & SpaceX?

[Grashtel]

Didn't Bush say he was going back (pity they couldn't send him) and pump money into it?

Some money but not enough and without the long term support that Lunar missions require.

I find it more counter intuitive that even the early apollo manned trips around the moon have never been repeated, the ones where they never landed.

And which vehicle would be used for those?  The Space Shuttle doesn't the boost required and would have its wings ripped off re-entering at Luna return speeds and the Americans didn't have anything else up to the development of the Space-X Dragon (which has a heat shield able to take a high speed re-entry).  The Soviets could have, and arguably did as the Zond missions used unmanned versions of the Soyuz vehicle, but after being beaten by the US decided that manned flybys wouldn't be worth it as their rocket needed for actual landings kept blowing up (trying to launch something with 30+ engines on the first stage and no static testing is just asking for trouble) so swept the whole thing under the proverbial rug and claimed that never wanted to in the first place.

Let's face it, man has been restricted to low earth orbit since the much disputed apollo missions and will for the foreseeable future.

Space-X is certainly looking at plans to go to the moon, including actual landings, if they can get the money to do so (or decide that the PR value is worth it) IMO they have a better chance of pulling it than NASA as they don't have to deal with the US government screwing with (where "screwing with" means consistently cutting) their funding on a regular basis.

[onebigmonkey]

ya i can see now what you mean by "funding"
thats why i strongly believe in private space explorers, nasa is the governments baby who is solely dependent on them for money.....maybe if we can get a good private corp. to do it then its possible we can go (back) to the moon?
what do you guys feel about the Musk Dynasty & SpaceX?

I wish they'd just get on with it.

[Echnaton]

ya i can see now what you mean by "funding"
thats why i strongly believe in private space explorers, nasa is the governments baby who is solely dependent on them for money.....maybe if we can get a good private corp. to do it then its possible we can go (back) to the moon?
what do you guys feel about the Musk Dynasty & SpaceX?

All lunar exploration is beholden to government funding because there is no commercially viable rationale for going to the moon.  Until one exists, all companies like SpaceX can hope is to be in a position to be a lower cost and equally well connected supplier of products and services for lunar exploration, should the government ever decide to go to the moon again.
 

[Jason Thompson]

Didn't Bush say he was going back (pity they couldn't send him) and pump money into it?

There's a world of difference between saying and doing. Firstly, he can say he'll do it then fail to actually do so. Secondly, given that any such project is bound to last longer than any US President's time in office, his successor can easily undo any work that was done. That is just what nixon did with Apollo, quietly dimsntling it by cutting its funding even as he was lauding the astronauts as heroes.

I find it more counter intuitive that even the early apollo manned trips around the moon have never been repeated, the ones where they never landed.

Why? Those were test flights.They achieved their objectives. Why would they be repeated? What would be the motivation for going all that way and not landing now?

[apollo_deception]

seems like all presidents bring up space exploration to excite the voters at election time lol

[Echnaton]

seems like all presidents bring up space exploration to excite the voters at election time lol

Are you saying that politicians pander to the voter?  I'm shocked, shocked at such a revelation. 

[Sus_pilot]

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.

This.

In 2007, I was at the president's dinner at EAA's AirVenture, the big air show held at Oshkosh each year.  I found myself sitting with a gentleman who, after talking a bit about his Beechcraft Baron, I found out had been called out of retirement to consult with Northrup-Grumman.  Seems he was a senior employee of Tom Kelly's during Apollo and the company was tapping him and other retirees to provide the background as to how they built and made the LM work to illuminate their then current project.  Basically, he said, "Yes, we have the drawings, the specs, and the data, but we're trying to remember how we did it."

My frustration is that I can't remember his name!