35 ms·

Surely it's just a money problem? During the space race America spent 2.5% of its GDP anually to land on the moon. I doubt they're willing to spend that now. A

Surely it's just a money problem? During the space race America spent 2.5% of its GDP anually to land on the moon. I doubt they're willing to spend that now. And cheaper designs come with higher risks

tahoeskibum 3y ago
I am not sure that cheaper designs mean higher risks. Technology has improved a lot in rockets just as it has in cars.
- simonblack 3y ago
  Technology has improved a lot in rockets just as it has in cars. For thirty-odd years, the US bought powerful Soviet/Russian rocket engines instead of building its own. Its rocketry and metallurgy knowledge-base is only just now getting back to where it was around 1970. (That's basically a loss of 50 years of skills and manufacturing.)
bediger4000 3y ago
Probably not. Kennedy made his speech in 1963, but a lot had been accomplished before that. 1963 was 18 years after WW2, and 10 years after the Korean War. There were tons of mid- and late-career engineers, and multiple aerospace companies. The 1950s were amazing in terms of number of airplanes, missiles and rockets developed. Those engineers had lots of experience. I don't think the US can replicate that level of Human resources right now, certainly not in terms of experience. The US hasn't had that many new aircraft or rockets or missiles since the Apollo program.
- dsq 3y ago
  Quite right, the US doesn't have as deep or broad a pool of engineerig talent. Sure, for a flagship program you still get people, but they'll be taken off something else. I think the lazy days will soon end, though, in a series of very stinging wakeup calls.
simonblack 3y ago
Definitely a money problem. Back in the 1960s, NASA had huge Federal funding as well as all the inputs from the wide-spread'space industry'. The US has been short on cash since 1971. It can't afford today what it used to be able to. The increasing shortage of STEM graduates has also been an important factor.

tahoeskibum 3y ago

I am not sure that cheaper designs mean higher risks. Technology has improved a lot in rockets just as it has in cars.

simonblack 3y ago
Technology has improved a lot in rockets just as it has in cars. For thirty-odd years, the US bought powerful Soviet/Russian rocket engines instead of building its own. Its rocketry and metallurgy knowledge-base is only just now getting back to where it was around 1970. (That's basically a loss of 50 years of skills and manufacturing.)

bediger4000 3y ago

Probably not. Kennedy made his speech in 1963, but a lot had been accomplished before that. 1963 was 18 years after WW2, and 10 years after the Korean War. There were tons of mid- and late-career engineers, and multiple aerospace companies. The 1950s were amazing in terms of number of airplanes, missiles and rockets developed. Those engineers had lots of experience. I don't think the US can replicate that level of Human resources right now, certainly not in terms of experience. The US hasn't had that many new aircraft or rockets or missiles since the Apollo program.

dsq 3y ago
Quite right, the US doesn't have as deep or broad a pool of engineerig talent. Sure, for a flagship program you still get people, but they'll be taken off something else. I think the lazy days will soon end, though, in a series of very stinging wakeup calls.

simonblack 3y ago

Definitely a money problem. Back in the 1960s, NASA had huge Federal funding as well as all the inputs from the wide-spread'space industry'. The US has been short on cash since 1971. It can't afford today what it used to be able to. The increasing shortage of STEM graduates has also been an important factor.