4 ms·

yeah... but there is a counterargument. we can't go back to the moon. We did, now we can't.

Bjartr 2y ago
But that's incorrect, we can go back to the moon any time, there just hasn't been a strong enough incentive to really make the cost worth it for either science or commerce until recently.
- me_me_me 2y ago
  [dead]
redeux 2y ago
We can land robots on Mars and a private company just landed a craft on the moon, but we can’t go back?
- ForOldHack 2y ago
  The Apollo program cost the United States $25.8 billion between 1960 and 1973, which is equivalent to about $318 billion in 2023 dollars. The Apollo 11 mission alone cost about $355 million in 1969 dollars, They had over 23,000 engineers on the ground. Now there are less than 3,000. We can, but ...
  - conception 2y ago
    We could have had 3 Apollo’s but got one f35 instead. :/
    - redeux 2y ago
      For other's reference, the F-35 program is expected to cost $2 trillion dollars [0], and each jet costs roughly $100 million [1]. We have about 1,100 of them [2]. Conclusion, money isn't preventing us from sending people to the moon. [0]https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/04/15/f-35s-to-cost-2-trillion-as-pentagon-plans-longer-use-says-watchdog/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/04/15/f-35s-to-cost-2-t... [1]https://simpleflying.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-cost/ https://simpleflying.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-cost/ [2]https://www.f35.com/f35/about/fast-facts.html https://www.f35.com/f35/about/fast-facts.html
      - me_me_me 2y ago
        [dead]
  - jessekv 2y ago
    It seems there are diminishing returns after the sixth helping of moon.
protocolture 2y ago
They cant rebuild Saturn V (well they can now they reverse engineered the engine) but they literally are going back, its just the most junkyard expensive nonsense in Artemis.
- ForOldHack 2y ago
  We have two left ( Saturn V first stages ), and nine engines, and the engines are absolutely unique. Many scientists say that they cannot be reproduced. "Reproducing the Saturn V rocket engines, specifically the F-1 engines used on the first stage, is a highly complex task due to their immense size, powerful thrust, and intricate design, requiring advanced engineering and manufacturing capabilities to accurately replicate the combustion chamber, fuel injectors, nozzle, and other critical components, making it a significant undertaking even for modern aerospace companies; essentially, recreating them would involve detailed reverse engineering of the original designs, access to specialized materials and manufacturing techniques, and extensive testing to ensure proper functionality and safety. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1
  - protocolture 2y ago
    My understanding, based on a documentary I watched, is that a bit of funding for Artemis bled off into a reverse engineering study, where they designed a new one, but Artemis went with the shuttle engines in the end so it never got produced.
Spooky23 2y ago
We don't need make-work in 2025, spending 4% of the Federal budget on Apollo to push the edge and accelerate ICBM development. We have rockets and invisible jets, now we're scaling down to drones, etc that are dominating future warfare.
- fwip 2y ago
  Economically, make-work programs would probably be useful right about now.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    Perhaps, but we’re in the process of burning down essential services to satisfy the rabble.
Bluestrike2 2y ago
It's not really accurate to say that we can't go back to the moon. Setting aside the fact that there have been a number of successful unmanned lunar missions in recent years, whenever your point gets made, it usually glosses over why people make that claim. The immediate answer is that we simply weren't interested in supporting major new manned missions. Manned spaceflight in general requires serious, ongoing political support across administrations. At the height of the space race, public support pretty much never rose above 50 percent in the United States.[1] The literal high mark was 53% immediately after Apollo 11 successfully landed on the moon, which is honestly mind-boggling to think about. We've completely white-washed the existence of serious political opposition[1] to the Apollo program that plagued it from the beginning to the end because--looking back--it seems almost absurd, as if the very idea that half the country had no interest in going to the moon is an insult to the American psyche. It's honestly amazing that we managed to follow up with the Space Shuttle at all. The STS program was shaped by a great many compromises NASA had to make in order to elicit political and military support. John Logsdon's After Apollo is a wonderful read on the subject. Anyhow, it's not like we can't go back. It's not like orbital mechanics changed on us at some point and now we're all stuck in LEO. It's just a political choice, and we can make a new one whenever we want. It's just hard, in large part because we don't have the cold war and constant fear of imminent nuclear war to push the program through congress. Beyond the political, to go back means redesigning everything that was done for Apollo. That's not a slight on American engineering or manufacturing capabilities. Everything--from the Saturn V, to the lunar module, and the countless pieces of equipment that helped get both where they needed to go--was designed for the manufacturing capabilities and techniques of the 1960s. You can't just grab the plans for the old Rocketdyne F-1 and start building them anew. The welds alone[2] represent a fundamental shift in capabilities and thinking. Common CAD design and analysis programs would have had Apollo engineers singing in the hallways in joy once they got over the shock. They took what they had, and they made it work brilliantly. Change that context, and they would have designed a different engine, and the same goes for everything else. 0. https://www.space.com/10601-apollo-moon-program-public-support-myth.html https://www.space.com/10601-apollo-moon-program-public-suppo... 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/moondoggle-the-forgotten-opposition-to-the-apollo-program/262254/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/moond... 2. https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the...

But that's incorrect, we can go back to the moon any time, there just hasn't been a strong enough incentive to really make the cost worth it for either science or commerce until recently.

me_me_me 2y ago
[dead]

redeux 2y ago

We can land robots on Mars and a private company just landed a craft on the moon, but we can’t go back?

ForOldHack 2y ago
The Apollo program cost the United States $25.8 billion between 1960 and 1973, which is equivalent to about $318 billion in 2023 dollars. The Apollo 11 mission alone cost about $355 million in 1969 dollars, They had over 23,000 engineers on the ground. Now there are less than 3,000. We can, but ...
- conception 2y ago
  We could have had 3 Apollo’s but got one f35 instead. :/
  - redeux 2y ago
    For other's reference, the F-35 program is expected to cost $2 trillion dollars [0], and each jet costs roughly $100 million [1]. We have about 1,100 of them [2]. Conclusion, money isn't preventing us from sending people to the moon. [0]https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/04/15/f-35s-to-cost-2-trillion-as-pentagon-plans-longer-use-says-watchdog/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/04/15/f-35s-to-cost-2-t... [1]https://simpleflying.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-cost/ https://simpleflying.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-cost/ [2]https://www.f35.com/f35/about/fast-facts.html https://www.f35.com/f35/about/fast-facts.html
    - me_me_me 2y ago
      [dead]
- jessekv 2y ago
  It seems there are diminishing returns after the sixth helping of moon.

protocolture 2y ago

They cant rebuild Saturn V (well they can now they reverse engineered the engine) but they literally are going back, its just the most junkyard expensive nonsense in Artemis.

ForOldHack 2y ago
We have two left ( Saturn V first stages ), and nine engines, and the engines are absolutely unique. Many scientists say that they cannot be reproduced. "Reproducing the Saturn V rocket engines, specifically the F-1 engines used on the first stage, is a highly complex task due to their immense size, powerful thrust, and intricate design, requiring advanced engineering and manufacturing capabilities to accurately replicate the combustion chamber, fuel injectors, nozzle, and other critical components, making it a significant undertaking even for modern aerospace companies; essentially, recreating them would involve detailed reverse engineering of the original designs, access to specialized materials and manufacturing techniques, and extensive testing to ensure proper functionality and safety. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1
- protocolture 2y ago
  My understanding, based on a documentary I watched, is that a bit of funding for Artemis bled off into a reverse engineering study, where they designed a new one, but Artemis went with the shuttle engines in the end so it never got produced.

Spooky23 2y ago

We don't need make-work in 2025, spending 4% of the Federal budget on Apollo to push the edge and accelerate ICBM development. We have rockets and invisible jets, now we're scaling down to drones, etc that are dominating future warfare.

fwip 2y ago
Economically, make-work programs would probably be useful right about now.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Perhaps, but we’re in the process of burning down essential services to satisfy the rabble.

Bluestrike2 2y ago

It's not really accurate to say that we can't go back to the moon. Setting aside the fact that there have been a number of successful unmanned lunar missions in recent years, whenever your point gets made, it usually glosses over why people make that claim. The immediate answer is that we simply weren't interested in supporting major new manned missions. Manned spaceflight in general requires serious, ongoing political support across administrations. At the height of the space race, public support pretty much never rose above 50 percent in the United States.[1] The literal high mark was 53% immediately after Apollo 11 successfully landed on the moon, which is honestly mind-boggling to think about. We've completely white-washed the existence of serious political opposition[1] to the Apollo program that plagued it from the beginning to the end because--looking back--it seems almost absurd, as if the very idea that half the country had no interest in going to the moon is an insult to the American psyche. It's honestly amazing that we managed to follow up with the Space Shuttle at all. The STS program was shaped by a great many compromises NASA had to make in order to elicit political and military support. John Logsdon's After Apollo is a wonderful read on the subject. Anyhow, it's not like we can't go back. It's not like orbital mechanics changed on us at some point and now we're all stuck in LEO. It's just a political choice, and we can make a new one whenever we want. It's just hard, in large part because we don't have the cold war and constant fear of imminent nuclear war to push the program through congress. Beyond the political, to go back means redesigning everything that was done for Apollo. That's not a slight on American engineering or manufacturing capabilities. Everything--from the Saturn V, to the lunar module, and the countless pieces of equipment that helped get both where they needed to go--was designed for the manufacturing capabilities and techniques of the 1960s. You can't just grab the plans for the old Rocketdyne F-1 and start building them anew. The welds alone[2] represent a fundamental shift in capabilities and thinking. Common CAD design and analysis programs would have had Apollo engineers singing in the hallways in joy once they got over the shock. They took what they had, and they made it work brilliantly. Change that context, and they would have designed a different engine, and the same goes for everything else. 0. https://www.space.com/10601-apollo-moon-program-public-support-myth.html https://www.space.com/10601-apollo-moon-program-public-suppo... 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/moondoggle-the-forgotten-opposition-to-the-apollo-program/262254/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/moond... 2. https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the...