8 ms·

You mean to tell me that USA lost it's technology for putting people on thr Moon? I thought NASA already had those rockets. What's preventing them from sending

You mean to tell me that USA lost it's technology for putting people on thr Moon? I thought NASA already had those rockets. What's preventing them from sending astronauts and cargo now?

notpushkin 3y ago
NASA still can make those rockets, but I believe those were pretty inefficient. While it was “justified” during the Space Race, nowadays they would be deemed too costly IMO.
literalAardvark 3y ago
The fact that they're 50 years old? It's really hard to keep stuff maintained, and manufacturing methods have completely changed. The last people who could build that particular lander are retired or dead. And they haven't made a new one. So no, NASA hasn't had a human rated lunar lander for a very long time.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  The fact that those rockets are 50 years old makes no difference. It worked then, why wouldn't it work now? You don't see 50 years old weapon systems stop working.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    > You don't see 50 years old weapon systems stop working. You mean simple firearms, that were carefully cleaned, prep'ed, and packed for long-term storage? Or something at least vaguely comparable to a moon rocket in size and complexity, like a B-52? Talk to an old Air Force guy, who knows the maintenance routines for the older warbirds, and how many issues they have with "manufacturer went out of business" spare parts, etc.
    - mavhc 3y ago
      The airforce is taking apart their older planes to create digital versions of them so they can make new parts
    - wheelerof4te 3y ago
      US Navi Ohio Nuclear submarine is almost 50 years old: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ohio_(SSGN-726) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ohio_(SSGN-726) If people can maintain underwater nuclear-powered coffins armed with nukes for 50 years, why can't they maintain a (then) functional space rocket? It's not like NASA is missing fuel, or that hull is damaged, or that engine is not working. At least, these things shouldn't happen if they put half effort into maintaining it.
      - shkkmo 3y ago
        You realize that submarine was only meant to last 20 years and instead they spent 3 years rebuilding it to serve a different role? It is also closer to 40 years than 50 and is decades younger than the rockets in question. I'd also hazard that the lifetime maintenance costs of that submarine far dwarf it's initial construction costs. Part of the reason why the SLS took so long and cost so much is because they DID try to re-use all the old resources and technology rather than building from scratch.
      - bell-cot 3y ago
        Your "can maintain" for those old submarines amounts to "can maintain something which was originally designed to last for several decades, with a high-trained full-time crew, regular major maintenance, and a supply chain for spare parts...and all the billions of dollars which those non-trivial details cost". Vs. those old rockets were designed to be one-shot expendable stuff. Plenty of them are on public display at museums - you could ask the museum staff about how many $$$/year they have available in their budgets, to keep the rockets in operational condition. (Hint: $0.) Or, you might want to check out the YouTube channel for the USS New Jersey (historic WWII battleship, now a museum) - https://www.youtube.com/battleshipnewjersey https://www.youtube.com/battleshipnewjersey - where their curator often talks in gritty detail about vast differences between "operational warship" and "keep afloat and open as a museum". Note that the something-million dollars which they are currently trying to fundraise - for some bare-minimum drydock maintenance - is small potatoes compared to the cost of a single new F-35 fighter.
  - gary_0 3y ago
    NASA would have to pull out the Saturn V blueprints and rebuild the manufacturing process from scratch. They would have to start hiring from 0 and reacquire all the institutional knowledge they lost over the past 50 years. They would have a real problem with supply chains: those are all gone, the tooling scrapped, the workers retired, and the business sectors offshored. They would have to redo all the testing so the process could reliably produce a working rocket from the designs. And the designs themselves are based on obsolete techniques, materials, and components. Even if it was possible, there would be no point: the blueprints weren't the hard part, and the world has changed since they were drawn up.
DocTomoe 3y ago
The USA has lost the technology for putting people on the moon. Records were not kept, knowledge died with the engineers who built it. Materials are no longer available, some of the technology has not been built in 50 years. In the end, redeveloping the stack is much cheaper than using the old rockets. Which is exactly what they are doing - and with every new development comes the risk you are chasing the wrong rabbit and won't, in the end, end up at your target.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  Sorry, but it is hard for me to accept that explanation. You don't simply "lose" such technology or don't make a plan B in case it fails to work for some strange reason. More plausable explanation, however, is that it simply did not exist at all and they faked everything.
  - Unroasted6154 3y ago
    You lose people, expertise and organizational structure. Those are more important than the "plans of the rocket". Not to mention, would nowadays engineers be able to work from the methods of back then? A lot of stuff would be faster to redesign from scratch (all the software and electronics for sure). NASA a radically changed it's focus an functions since the space race. Suppliers have changed too. They could do it again with enough funds and time, but it will take many years.
  - theonlybutlet 3y ago
    Ofcourse we could make it in theory, but practically that's not the case. You don't just build a Saturn rocket and moonlander in your own factory (inhouse) one day. There is a massive supply chain. The development cost percentage points of US GDP. There were thousands of people involved. There also wasn't the internet. x factory responsibile for making component y, would call their supplier and buy an off the shelf component. Those suppliers no longer manufacture those components, why? No demand, probably obsolete etc. It's like trying to go buy a vacuum tube now when you could simply use a transistor. Imagine the cost of setting up a factory just to manufacturer vacuum tubes that have no other use. There's plenty suppliers that wouldn't have documented their manufacturing processes either, with the knowledge being handed down to whoever is doing the job. Orchestrating a plan to keep millions in the dark and ensuring thousands, upon thousands of people keep a secret to their deathbeds is a lot less plausible.
wongarsu 3y ago
Yes, they lost the technology. The last Apollo mission was over 50 years ago, the people who achieved it are retired or dead, and engineering drawings alone are not enough to build a new Saturn V (or the landers, suits, etc). Not to mention all of that is outdated technology by now. NASA is now building the SLS, a modern(ish) heavy lift rocket meant for moon missions, among other things. But for a couple decades in between there was this obsession with the Space Shuttle as the primary launch platform, and the Space Shuttle wasn't of much use beyond low earth orbit. And with the Soviets focusing on space stations after the Apollo landings there wasn't any competitive aspect to going further either. There were obviously lots of unmanned missions to the moon and other places in the solar system, but manned activity was limited to low-earth orbit for the last 50 years, so the capability to go further withered.
- calderknight 3y ago
  The main component missing for an American crewed lunar landing is a lunar lander, which is planned to be a version of the Starship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    And spacesuits, NASA has been impressively ineffective at getting any kind of new spacesuit designs going, they're still just cycling between the leftovers from the shuttle.
    - calderknight 3y ago
      Apparently, they can't do their lunar spacesuits until they do their lander > What's more, delays to Starship have knock-on effects because the spacesuit contractor needs to know how the suits will interface with the spacecraft, and simulators need to be built for astronauts to learn its systems. From https://web.archive.org/web/20230809230628/https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/nasa-may-delay-crewed-lunar-landing-beyond-artemis-3-mission-3686686 https://web.archive.org/web/20230809230628/https://www.chann...
  - 3y ago
nycdotnet 3y ago
I have a hard time getting a React project from a few years ago to `npm install`.
naikrovek 3y ago
technology and knowledge quickly deteriorate if they aren't actively kept alive. Remember, that this knowledge must be in human minds, and be in the forefront of those minds continually, for the technology to be up to speed enough for it to be collaborated on and to progress or to be employed. no group of people today, outside of a few enthusiast amateurs (very few), know much about how the Apollo program worked in enough detail to resurrect that technology and infrastructure. We can't return to the moon today. That's why we're building up a new moon program. We can't just pick up where we left off.

You mean to tell me that USA lost it's technology for putting people on thr Moon? I thought NASA already had those rockets. What's preventing them from sending astronauts and cargo now?

notpushkin 3y ago

NASA still can make those rockets, but I believe those were pretty inefficient. While it was “justified” during the Space Race, nowadays they would be deemed too costly IMO.

literalAardvark 3y ago

The fact that they're 50 years old? It's really hard to keep stuff maintained, and manufacturing methods have completely changed. The last people who could build that particular lander are retired or dead. And they haven't made a new one. So no, NASA hasn't had a human rated lunar lander for a very long time.

wheelerof4te 3y ago
The fact that those rockets are 50 years old makes no difference. It worked then, why wouldn't it work now? You don't see 50 years old weapon systems stop working.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  > You don't see 50 years old weapon systems stop working. You mean simple firearms, that were carefully cleaned, prep'ed, and packed for long-term storage? Or something at least vaguely comparable to a moon rocket in size and complexity, like a B-52? Talk to an old Air Force guy, who knows the maintenance routines for the older warbirds, and how many issues they have with "manufacturer went out of business" spare parts, etc.
  - mavhc 3y ago
    The airforce is taking apart their older planes to create digital versions of them so they can make new parts
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    US Navi Ohio Nuclear submarine is almost 50 years old: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ohio_(SSGN-726) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ohio_(SSGN-726) If people can maintain underwater nuclear-powered coffins armed with nukes for 50 years, why can't they maintain a (then) functional space rocket? It's not like NASA is missing fuel, or that hull is damaged, or that engine is not working. At least, these things shouldn't happen if they put half effort into maintaining it.
    - shkkmo 3y ago
      You realize that submarine was only meant to last 20 years and instead they spent 3 years rebuilding it to serve a different role? It is also closer to 40 years than 50 and is decades younger than the rockets in question. I'd also hazard that the lifetime maintenance costs of that submarine far dwarf it's initial construction costs. Part of the reason why the SLS took so long and cost so much is because they DID try to re-use all the old resources and technology rather than building from scratch.
    - bell-cot 3y ago
      Your "can maintain" for those old submarines amounts to "can maintain something which was originally designed to last for several decades, with a high-trained full-time crew, regular major maintenance, and a supply chain for spare parts...and all the billions of dollars which those non-trivial details cost". Vs. those old rockets were designed to be one-shot expendable stuff. Plenty of them are on public display at museums - you could ask the museum staff about how many $$$/year they have available in their budgets, to keep the rockets in operational condition. (Hint: $0.) Or, you might want to check out the YouTube channel for the USS New Jersey (historic WWII battleship, now a museum) - https://www.youtube.com/battleshipnewjersey https://www.youtube.com/battleshipnewjersey - where their curator often talks in gritty detail about vast differences between "operational warship" and "keep afloat and open as a museum". Note that the something-million dollars which they are currently trying to fundraise - for some bare-minimum drydock maintenance - is small potatoes compared to the cost of a single new F-35 fighter.
- gary_0 3y ago
  NASA would have to pull out the Saturn V blueprints and rebuild the manufacturing process from scratch. They would have to start hiring from 0 and reacquire all the institutional knowledge they lost over the past 50 years. They would have a real problem with supply chains: those are all gone, the tooling scrapped, the workers retired, and the business sectors offshored. They would have to redo all the testing so the process could reliably produce a working rocket from the designs. And the designs themselves are based on obsolete techniques, materials, and components. Even if it was possible, there would be no point: the blueprints weren't the hard part, and the world has changed since they were drawn up.

DocTomoe 3y ago

The USA has lost the technology for putting people on the moon. Records were not kept, knowledge died with the engineers who built it. Materials are no longer available, some of the technology has not been built in 50 years. In the end, redeveloping the stack is much cheaper than using the old rockets. Which is exactly what they are doing - and with every new development comes the risk you are chasing the wrong rabbit and won't, in the end, end up at your target.

wheelerof4te 3y ago
Sorry, but it is hard for me to accept that explanation. You don't simply "lose" such technology or don't make a plan B in case it fails to work for some strange reason. More plausable explanation, however, is that it simply did not exist at all and they faked everything.
- Unroasted6154 3y ago
  You lose people, expertise and organizational structure. Those are more important than the "plans of the rocket". Not to mention, would nowadays engineers be able to work from the methods of back then? A lot of stuff would be faster to redesign from scratch (all the software and electronics for sure). NASA a radically changed it's focus an functions since the space race. Suppliers have changed too. They could do it again with enough funds and time, but it will take many years.
- theonlybutlet 3y ago
  Ofcourse we could make it in theory, but practically that's not the case. You don't just build a Saturn rocket and moonlander in your own factory (inhouse) one day. There is a massive supply chain. The development cost percentage points of US GDP. There were thousands of people involved. There also wasn't the internet. x factory responsibile for making component y, would call their supplier and buy an off the shelf component. Those suppliers no longer manufacture those components, why? No demand, probably obsolete etc. It's like trying to go buy a vacuum tube now when you could simply use a transistor. Imagine the cost of setting up a factory just to manufacturer vacuum tubes that have no other use. There's plenty suppliers that wouldn't have documented their manufacturing processes either, with the knowledge being handed down to whoever is doing the job. Orchestrating a plan to keep millions in the dark and ensuring thousands, upon thousands of people keep a secret to their deathbeds is a lot less plausible.

wongarsu 3y ago

Yes, they lost the technology. The last Apollo mission was over 50 years ago, the people who achieved it are retired or dead, and engineering drawings alone are not enough to build a new Saturn V (or the landers, suits, etc). Not to mention all of that is outdated technology by now. NASA is now building the SLS, a modern(ish) heavy lift rocket meant for moon missions, among other things. But for a couple decades in between there was this obsession with the Space Shuttle as the primary launch platform, and the Space Shuttle wasn't of much use beyond low earth orbit. And with the Soviets focusing on space stations after the Apollo landings there wasn't any competitive aspect to going further either. There were obviously lots of unmanned missions to the moon and other places in the solar system, but manned activity was limited to low-earth orbit for the last 50 years, so the capability to go further withered.

calderknight 3y ago
The main component missing for an American crewed lunar landing is a lunar lander, which is planned to be a version of the Starship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS
- dotnet00 3y ago
  And spacesuits, NASA has been impressively ineffective at getting any kind of new spacesuit designs going, they're still just cycling between the leftovers from the shuttle.
  - calderknight 3y ago
    Apparently, they can't do their lunar spacesuits until they do their lander > What's more, delays to Starship have knock-on effects because the spacesuit contractor needs to know how the suits will interface with the spacecraft, and simulators need to be built for astronauts to learn its systems. From https://web.archive.org/web/20230809230628/https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/nasa-may-delay-crewed-lunar-landing-beyond-artemis-3-mission-3686686 https://web.archive.org/web/20230809230628/https://www.chann...
- 3y ago

nycdotnet 3y ago

I have a hard time getting a React project from a few years ago to `npm install`.

naikrovek 3y ago

technology and knowledge quickly deteriorate if they aren't actively kept alive. Remember, that this knowledge must be in human minds, and be in the forefront of those minds continually, for the technology to be up to speed enough for it to be collaborated on and to progress or to be employed. no group of people today, outside of a few enthusiast amateurs (very few), know much about how the Apollo program worked in enough detail to resurrect that technology and infrastructure. We can't return to the moon today. That's why we're building up a new moon program. We can't just pick up where we left off.