3 ms·

In other news, we don't actually have the technology anymore to put a man on the Moon. Hence why we are having to redevelop it all over again.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Having grown up around Johnson Space Center and the decommissioned Saturn V on display, I think this is more of a "technically true" misnomer. It's true in the same way we don't have the technology to build a 69 Camaro anymore because we dismantled it and have no desire to, not because we have lost the technical capability.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  The difference between the technology to build a 69 Camaro and a vehicle to take us to the Moon (heh, among many) is that the technology to build the Camaro has steadily evolved into the technology we use to build cars today, whereas we literally stopped making Moon transfer vehicles about 50 years ago and literally haven't made anything since that is capable of doing it again.
  - Gibbon1 9y ago
    It's not the the technology hasn't advanced. There's been a lot of improvements in aerospace manufacturing techniques and materials since then. It's just the cost vs interest isn't there. In the case of the US the space shuttle program was the big disaster. Keeping them operational consumed so much of NASA's budget that they couldn't afford to develop a heavy lift vehicle. That and the bloated US military industrial pork complex can't make anything on time and on budget.
    - JetSpiegel 9y ago
      > It's not the the technology hasn't advanced. There's been a lot of improvements in aerospace manufacturing techniques and materials since then. It's just the cost vs interest isn't there. Isn't that a distinction without difference? We have the technology to solve world hunger, it's just the cost vs interest isn't there.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    We could be sending people to the moon monthly if NASA got out of the business of building launch vehicles. The first version of the SLS will be only lift slightly more than the Falcon Heavy, yet each launch of the SLS will cost over $2B while the Heavy costs $100M.
- IanDrake 9y ago
  In your example the replacement technology is demonstrably better and more capable. We don’t have replacement technology for the moon lander or even the shuttle. Though I suppose you could argue sending robots instead of people is better?
  - labster 9y ago
    I can only guess that you're being downvoted because you want a replacement technology for the Space Shuttle. That's still a pretty divisive issue, as the some people blame the shuttle for NASA not developing new launch vehicles for 30 years, as they spent so much effort maintaining the shuttles. I think the SpaceX approach is working better, at least for now, where you attempt reusability, but not for a long time. It's like a Harbor Frieght tool -- use it like 3 or 4 times before it's toast. But SpaceX hasn't yet had the fun of launching passengers, so it's really not a fair comparison.
    - IanDrake 9y ago
      Well if that’s why, it’s ironic because I’m a huge fan of privatizing space travel and competition which has ensued.
throwaway84742 9y ago
So true. I think of technological capability as of a cultural artifact these days. In the sense that you can’t really just start making something sophisticated right off the bat, you have to build the culture that enables you to do it, slowly, bit by bit. You can certainly try to cargo cult, but you won’t really get anywhere if you don’t have the intangibles.
raverbashing 9y ago
Meh A big rocket will get you there. The tricky part is getting back. Still, in some aspects, easier than going Also easier when you don't have to do all the calculations by hand
- adrianN 9y ago
  You say "big rocket" as if it were trivial to construct a huge bomb that explodes at just the right rate to get you to the moon in one piece.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    Not trivial, but not necessarily the hardest part, and the technology for building big rockets hasn't been lost.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

Having grown up around Johnson Space Center and the decommissioned Saturn V on display, I think this is more of a "technically true" misnomer. It's true in the same way we don't have the technology to build a 69 Camaro anymore because we dismantled it and have no desire to, not because we have lost the technical capability.

craftyguy 9y ago
The difference between the technology to build a 69 Camaro and a vehicle to take us to the Moon (heh, among many) is that the technology to build the Camaro has steadily evolved into the technology we use to build cars today, whereas we literally stopped making Moon transfer vehicles about 50 years ago and literally haven't made anything since that is capable of doing it again.
- Gibbon1 9y ago
  It's not the the technology hasn't advanced. There's been a lot of improvements in aerospace manufacturing techniques and materials since then. It's just the cost vs interest isn't there. In the case of the US the space shuttle program was the big disaster. Keeping them operational consumed so much of NASA's budget that they couldn't afford to develop a heavy lift vehicle. That and the bloated US military industrial pork complex can't make anything on time and on budget.
  - JetSpiegel 9y ago
    > It's not the the technology hasn't advanced. There's been a lot of improvements in aerospace manufacturing techniques and materials since then. It's just the cost vs interest isn't there. Isn't that a distinction without difference? We have the technology to solve world hunger, it's just the cost vs interest isn't there.
- valuearb 9y ago
  We could be sending people to the moon monthly if NASA got out of the business of building launch vehicles. The first version of the SLS will be only lift slightly more than the Falcon Heavy, yet each launch of the SLS will cost over $2B while the Heavy costs $100M.
IanDrake 9y ago
In your example the replacement technology is demonstrably better and more capable. We don’t have replacement technology for the moon lander or even the shuttle. Though I suppose you could argue sending robots instead of people is better?
- labster 9y ago
  I can only guess that you're being downvoted because you want a replacement technology for the Space Shuttle. That's still a pretty divisive issue, as the some people blame the shuttle for NASA not developing new launch vehicles for 30 years, as they spent so much effort maintaining the shuttles. I think the SpaceX approach is working better, at least for now, where you attempt reusability, but not for a long time. It's like a Harbor Frieght tool -- use it like 3 or 4 times before it's toast. But SpaceX hasn't yet had the fun of launching passengers, so it's really not a fair comparison.
  - IanDrake 9y ago
    Well if that’s why, it’s ironic because I’m a huge fan of privatizing space travel and competition which has ensued.

throwaway84742 9y ago

So true. I think of technological capability as of a cultural artifact these days. In the sense that you can’t really just start making something sophisticated right off the bat, you have to build the culture that enables you to do it, slowly, bit by bit. You can certainly try to cargo cult, but you won’t really get anywhere if you don’t have the intangibles.

raverbashing 9y ago

Meh A big rocket will get you there. The tricky part is getting back. Still, in some aspects, easier than going Also easier when you don't have to do all the calculations by hand

adrianN 9y ago
You say "big rocket" as if it were trivial to construct a huge bomb that explodes at just the right rate to get you to the moon in one piece.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Not trivial, but not necessarily the hardest part, and the technology for building big rockets hasn't been lost.