Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
COST V. VALUE OF 1960'S MOON PROGRAM
Options
-
07-11-2015 12:10pm#1Was the cost of the 1960's moon program worth the effort?
The estimated cost was around 25 billion dollars (300 billion in today's money)
Critics have said that a lot of food could be bought with this money; a lot of jobs created ... etc etc.
To my mind it depends on whether you look at the cost or the value of the project.
This is an important debate if we are to justify further expense on future projects such as a Mars mission; which has been on hold for nearly fifty years!
To my mind it was worth the effort. It was not the cost of sending a man to the moon but a massive investment in research of science and technology which has changed the lives of many people.
Not just non-stick frying pans but all modern computers , all forms of hospital scanners, have their routes in this project. I am sure people can think of other advances.
Many jobs were created and lives changed forever2
Comments
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89642
There is no debate. From Yes Minister"If it costs £5 billion a year to maintain Britain's nuclear defences
and £75 a year to feed a starving African child, how many children could
be saved from starvation "if the Ministry of Defence abandoned nuclear weapons?"
"That's easy. None. They'd spend it all on conventional weapons.
The point being that the money spent on NASA was never, ever going to be spent on the poor.
The moon shot was all about cold war politics. That money would have been spent on "defence" otherwise. Star Wars was a later manifestation. In both cases the primary aim was to out spend the Soviets so they'd go bankrupt trying to keep up.
Besides the Space Shuttle was a greater drain on resources than Apollo.
Skylab had a greater internal volume than the ISS has. Think about that for a second, in one respect the ISS is actually a step backwards for the US. he real cost of the US space program is, and has been, re-inventing the wheel. (Right now they are trying to catch up on the capabilities they had with the 1966 Saturn Ib) Lookup Dynasoar to see one version of what might have been.
Commercial satellites are by definition are commercial. ie. they pay for themselves. So no resources diverted from good causes.
India got a probe to Mars for $85m. That's less than it costs to make a decent movie about going to Mars. You can argue about how that money might have been better spent on feeding the poor, or you can look at it as a loss leader for getting a bigger chunk of the billions spent on launching commercial satellites. Or you can look it as science.
BTW India has just pledged $600m to help Africa.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-346646260 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89642
This was mostly PR done afterwards.Not just non-stick frying pans but all modern computers , all forms of hospital scanners, have their routes in this project. I am sure people can think of other advances.
The main benefits were lighter, more modular computers.
But that was going to happen anyway. Lookup Konrad Zuse sometime. He pretty much invented the computer and high level languages independently. So even without Bletchey Park and ENIAC we'd still have them. He didn't use valves, but then again no one used valves once reliable transistors were affordable and they were developed for analog uses like telephony, radio and radar.
Here are some NASA spin off's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies. Not a lot really when you consider how they were burning through money back in the heyday.
And you have to remember that it was NASA's business to develop technology. Prior to being called NASA they were doing this sort of stuff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_cowling0 -
The main point to my post is that large technological research projects are generally beneficial to mankind; regardless of cost.
Certainly it was ' cold war politics' that provided the motivation and the money for the moon program. The technological benefits thereafter are huge. The various technical advances that were pushed forward during that period have been taken further by subsequent programs but at a much slower rate because the full value of these research projects have not been spelled out; whereas the cost of them has always been.
For instance: thirty years ago we were thirty years away from a fission nuclear reactor to produce clean energy and today we are still thirty years away because there seems to be no motivation or money to push this project forward. Why?
Speaking of Bletchley Park: Tommy Flowers had to put up GBP 1000 of his own money to build the 'colossus' computer because he could not get backing for his project and this helped, significantly, to win the war.
When looking at the full cost of such technological projects it cannot be left to the accountants to evaluate the monetary costs alone, the full 'value' needs to be spelled out which is hard to quantify in GBP or USD alone.0 -
The main point to my post is that large technological research projects are generally beneficial to mankind; regardless of cost.
Certainly it was ' cold war politics' that provided the motivation and the money for the moon program. The technological benefits thereafter are huge. The various technical advances that were pushed forward during that period have been taken further by subsequent programs but at a much slower rate because the full value of these research projects have not been spelled out; whereas the cost of them has always been.
For instance: thirty years ago we were thirty years away from a fusion nuclear reactor to produce clean energy and today we are still thirty years away because there seems to be no motivation or money to push this project forward. Why?
Speaking of Bletchley Park: Tommy Flowers had to put up GBP 1000 of his own money to build the 'colossus' computer because he could not get backing for his project and this helped, significantly, to win the war.
When looking at the full cost of such technological projects it cannot be left to the accountants to evaluate the monetary costs alone, the full 'value' needs to be spelled out which is hard to quantify in GBP or USD alone.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89642
Strongly disagree. Too many counter examples.The main point to my post is that large technological research projects are generally beneficial to mankind; regardless of cost.
Hundreds of small self contained naval nuclear reactors later and they still aren't commercially viable.
Hundreds of Billions of Dollars later the Americans are using an updated 1960's spacecraft on an updated 1950's ICBM for manned spaceflight.
They are having problems with ammonia on the ISS when the Russians just used antifreeze. Ammonia is lighter and more efficient but highly toxic. There is a very long history of the US developing advanced systems that are better in theory when the Russians went for the boring but reliable solution.
What new technologies has the Space Shuttle program produced ?
A lot of the early development work on transistors was done by Japan resulting in cheap high quality ones.
No idea.For instance: thirty years ago we were thirty years away from a fission nuclear reactor to produce clean energy and today we are still thirty years away because there seems to be no motivation or money to push this project forward. Why?
Hinkley C will cost more than the ITER.
Like they say about semiconductors
Gallium Arsenide is the technology of the future. Always was, and always will be.
There is such a thing as a mature technology. Improvements are incremental and in many cases are more about being able to exploit materials rather than major design improvements.
A classic example would be the bicycle.
The Boeing 737 has been stretched to the size of the 707. Lots of incremental improvements over the years but the family resemblance is still there. Engines are now twice as powerful so only needs two instead of four.0 -
Advertisement
-
The whole point of technological development is that you learn from previous prototypes and mistakes; where things went wrong is often more important than where things go right because it provides a concentration for moving forward. Certainly there have been mistakes. Improvements are often incremental but if you do not make a start then you will not move forward at any pace.
With regards to Nuclear energy. I am referring to a nuclear fusion reactor to produce clean energy.[ I tried to edit my post but was unable to do so.] So far this has not been developed anywhere because the funds have not been committed to it. There is no significant radioactive waste from a fusion reactor, compared to a fission reactor; there is unlimited fuel; there would be unlimited energy. I do not understand why there has not been significant investment in this project.
The bicycle has been around for a couple of centuries; each model improving on what went before; because people need a direct form of transport. The link between technological project and investment is quite clear.
Similarly air travel has had investment and improvement, also, because there is a direct need for people to travel fast, safely and economically around the globe.
The space shuttle was the first re-usable space craft; thus saving money. There are many satellites in orbit due to this vehicle and many have been repaired Tiles replaced the chemical heat shield which went before on the moon project. There have been problems with these tiles detaching which is one point of focus for improvement for the next generation of re-usable vehicles.
With the example of transistors: part of any technological project is a complete literature survey to see what is already out there and what can be developed further to assist the project. This is very important so as not to repeat work already done. Unfortunately much of the work that was done by the allies in the second world war with regard to computers was repeated because it was top secret for years afterwards.
Certainly you will need comprehensive project management. But if the funds and the drive are not there then no significant progress will be made at all in these projects.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89642
Fine in theory but that's not what happened.The whole point of technological development is that you learn from previous prototypes and mistakes; where things went wrong is often more important than where things go right because it provides a concentration for moving forward. Certainly there have been mistakes. Improvements are often incremental but if you do not make a start then you will not move forward at any pace.
It takes a lot of energy to extract Deuterium. And if we had cheap storage then solar would be the technology to beat.there is unlimited fuel; there would be unlimited energy. I do not understand why there has not been significant investment in this project.
No it's not. Graeme Obree broke the cycling record on a bike he built himself, including bits from an old washing machine.The bicycle has been around for a couple of centuries; each model improving on what went before; because people need a direct form of transport. The link between technological project and investment is quite clear.
what does this even mean ?Similarly air travel has had investment and improvement, also, because there is a direct need for people to travel fast, safely and economically around the globe.
And today's airliners fly at the same speed as a 1947 Boeing B47.
Oh dear Lord. Please do your own research.The space shuttle was the first re-usable space craft; thus saving money.
Nope. like I said earlierWith the example of transistors: part of any technological project is a complete literature survey to see what is already out there and what can be developed further to assist the project. This is very important so as not to repeat work already done. Unfortunately much of the work that was done by the allies in the second world war with regard to computers was repeated because it was top secret for years afterwards.But that was going to happen anyway. Lookup Konrad Zuse sometime. He pretty much invented the computer and high level languages independently. So even without Bletchey Park and ENIAC we'd still have them. He didn't use valves, but then again no one used valves once reliable transistors were affordable and they were developed for analog uses like telephony, radio and radar.0 -
In reply to post 8;
PROTOTYPES AND MISTAKES: Please elaborate: "what happened' I do not understand this
FIRST RE-USABLE SPACE CRAFT: Please elaborate:" Do your own research" The space shuttle WAS the first re-usable space craft.
ENERGY: Solar panels are certainly getting better than in the past; more productive. This is as a result of making advances on the original panels. Taking a prototype and improving it. Research into energy storage is another example of a technology project which should be moving forward but is not. We are still thirty years from a fusion reactor and, as far as I am concerned this is a project which should be pursued. We need energy whether it comes from solar, wind, waves or whatever and this does not mean a one-track approach
CYCLING: If the gentleman in question built his own bike where did he get his ideas from? He looked at the existing models and improved on them.
COMPUTERS The work carried out at Bletchley Park was so top secret that it did not come out until the 1970's. when history had to be re-assessed. By that time computers had been developed elsewhere and much of the work done at Bletchley Park on computers had lain dormant. Konrad Zuse was working for the other side at the time and he was extremely innovative but where did he get his ideas from? He built on work that was done before and improved on them.
AIRLINERS: IF the wright brother shad built a bi-plane and flown it, risking their own lives, we would probably not have a 747 yet. The airline industry is a perfect example of improving on earlier models. Modern planes may go at the same speed as earlier mode3ls but they are more economical and safer; which is an improvement on the earlier models.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89642
The US are spending billions trying to get back the capabilities they had in the 1960's by reusing technology from the 1960's-1980's.In reply to post 8;
PROTOTYPES AND MISTAKES: Please elaborate: "what happened' I do not understand this
Only the orbiter was reusable. AFAIK no SRB segment was used more than 7 times. But the point bit I was arguing with was any mention of "cheap" 15,000 people on the pay roll. Something like €1.5Bn per flight if you take all costs over the program into account.FIRST RE-USABLE SPACE CRAFT: Please elaborate:" Do your own research" The space shuttle WAS the first re-usable space craft.
The real improvement has been in cost.ENERGY: Solar panels are certainly getting better than in the past; more productive.
Just pointing out that improvements can't be correlated with throwing money at it.CYCLING: If the gentleman in question built his own bike where did he get his ideas from? He looked at the existing models and improved on them.
You'd have to show what previous were he built on as he more or less started from scratch.COMPUTERS The work carried out at Bletchley Park was so top secret that it Konrad Zuse was working for the other side at the time and he was extremely innovative but where did he get his ideas from? He built on work that was done before and improved on them.
We would. There were many others inventing the aeroplane. The key breakthrough was the petrol engine. It's power to weight ratio allowed powered flight. As the Russians proved with the Mig25 you can make anything fly if you have enough power.AIRLINERS: IF the wright brother shad built a bi-plane and flown it, risking their own lives, we would probably not have a 747 yet.
We don't have flying wings. Or blended bodies. Or any of the other designs that are more efficient. Almost all jet liners use the same configuration as that 1947 jet. Sweptback wings, high if military , low if civilian, engines at 1/3 and 2/3 spacing of wings, and use fewer engines if they are bigger. A small number of jets have engines at the back combined with a T tail.The airline industry is a perfect example of improving on earlier models. Modern planes may go at the same speed as earlier mode3ls but they are more economical and safer; which is an improvement on the earlier models.0 -
In reply to post 10:
US SPENDING BILLIONS: Please elaborate
RE_USABLE SPACE CRAFT: You are confusing cost with value again. The space shuttle is theFIRST re-usable craft and is bound to be expensive. The following craft will build on the technology and improve
SOLAR PANELS: They are also more productive
CYCLE: I would accept your argument if the guy had never seen a bike before.
PLANES: Again you are missing the point. The Wright brothers are one example. Modern planes are improvements on old planes. No flying wings yet but maybe in future. I understand there were originally stability problems that can possibly be solved with modern computers ( which are improvements of the computers built before ).0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89642
Compare Saturn Ib with Atlas Heavy / SLSIn reply to post 10:
US SPENDING BILLIONS: Please elaborate
The whole point of reusable was to be cheaper.RE_USABLE SPACE CRAFT: You are confusing cost with value again. The space shuttle is theFIRST re-usable craft and is bound to be expensive. The following craft will build on the technology and improve
Yes. but it'sSOLAR PANELS: They are also more productive
Pick which side you want to argue. You can't dis the guy for doing something with zero budget while arguing that huge budgets are justified by minor increments. And yes there were flying wings in the 1940's and 50's.CYCLE: I would accept your argument if the guy had never seen a bike before.
PLANES: Again you are missing the point. The Wright brothers are one example. Modern planes are improvements on old planes. No flying wings yet but maybe in future. I understand there were originally stability problems that can possibly be solved with modern computers ( which are improvements of the computers built before ).
Again Zuse didn't just improve the computer. He had almost nothing to go on. Like other groups he came up a computing machine. Who invented the computer is really a question of semantics since it depends more on the exact definition of what a computer is. ENIAC was another device that didn't depend on decoding in the UK. By the way Colossus was to speed up the electromechanical code breakers already used by the Poles.0 -
In reply to post 10:
US SPENDING BILLIONS: Please elaborate
RE_USABLE SPACE CRAFT: You are confusing cost with value again. The space shuttle is theFIRST re-usable craft and is bound to be expensive. The following craft will build on the technology and improve
what following craft, NASA is spending billions building a rocket that is the exact opposite of the shuttle and they are using parts/engines/boosters from the shuttle to do it
there are at least three other reuseable systems in the works and none of them are like the shuttle
the shuttle was a joke, a waste of time and money0 -
IN REPLY TO POST 12:
SATURN V ATLAS - I do not quite understand the point you are making. If the Americans are developing another rocket then that is good news; hopefully using proper project management techniques.
RE-USABLE SPACE CRAFT - You are mixing cost with value. Comparing the current cost of rockets to the first re-usable craft, the Space Shuttle, is not a fair comparison. The re-usable craft will have a different agenda and workload to the rocket. The cost of putting a satellite into orbit is currently cheaper with a rocket; rocket technology is much older. The value of the shuttle is that it is the FIRST re-usable space craft and future models will eventually be better and will be improved based on the experiences with the shuttle. In the same way that the 'Ford Mondeo' is better than the 'Model T Ford'. However if Henry Ford hadn't built the 'Model T' we wouldn't have the 'Mondeo'
SOLAR PANELS: The new models are MORE PRODUCTIVE than the old models because they have been improved from the originals.
COMPUTERS: It probably went something like the development of the nuclear bomb. During the twenties and thirties: meetings of academics swapping ideas and thoughts at seminars etc and bringing the ideas back home. When WW2 came along, development went on separate tracks. Zuse was working for the Germans. The Bletchley park guys for the Allies. They would have developed and furthered their ideas based on what was known and discussed in the preceding years; Zuse did not pull his ideas out of thin air. I am not saying that he was not resourceful and intuitive. He was certainly a smart guy and that's great; such people should be encouraged and funded when they present themselves and their ideas so that they can push the boundaries.
But:
1. They do not pull their ideas out of thin air.
2. I have not heard of anyone building a fusion reactor or a Mars Space Craft in their garden shed. This takes big investment, project management and organisation.
IN REPLY TO POST 13
RE-USABLE CRAFT: If there are re-usable craft being developed then I hope that they are developing and learning from the innovations and problems encountered with the space shuttle; to do anything else would be poor project management. I do not think the shuttle was a joke; it was a FIRST. and as such there would have been problems.
NEW AMERICAN ROCKET: If the Americans are developing a new rocket utilising existing technology from the shuttle program and developing it further then I cannot see what is wrong with that. It is what I would expect them to do using proper project management techniques.0 -
IN REPLY TO POST 12:
SATURN V ATLAS - I do not quite understand the point you are making. If the Americans are developing another rocket then that is good news; hopefully using proper project management techniques.
RE-USABLE SPACE CRAFT - You are mixing cost with value. Comparing the current cost of rockets to the first re-usable craft, the Space Shuttle, is not a fair comparison. The re-usable craft will have a different agenda and workload to the rocket. The cost of putting a satellite into orbit is currently cheaper with a rocket; rocket technology is much older. The value of the shuttle is that it is the FIRST re-usable space craft and future models will eventually be better and will be improved based on the experiences with the shuttle. In the same way that the 'Ford Mondeo' is better than the 'Model T Ford'. However if Henry Ford hadn't built the 'Model T' we wouldn't have the 'Mondeo'
nobody is working on a next gen shuttle, NOBODY, anyone who looks at the shuttle in detail comes very quickly to the conclusion that it was a massive waste of time and money, it was a dead endIN REPLY TO POST 13
RE-USABLE CRAFT: If there are re-usable craft being developed then I hope that they are developing and learning from the innovations and problems encountered with the space shuttle; to do anything else would be poor project management. I do not think the shuttle was a joke; it was a FIRST. and as such there would have been problems.
yeah they are, and they will do their best to NOT be like the shuttle, and BTW even before the first shuttle launch their were plenty of engineers pointing out that it would never be a success, it was a joke, nothing more than a pork project scam, of the reusable systems I know about now, all of them look like normal rockets, apart from Skylon which is not really a rocket as most would understand the termNEW AMERICAN ROCKET: If the Americans are developing a new rocket utilising existing technology from the shuttle program and developing it further then I cannot see what is wrong with that. It is what I would expect them to do using proper project management techniques.
whats wrong is the amount of money its costing, they have the engines and boosters ready to go, so what are they spending all the billions on, its a far better launcher than the shuttle but its still a pork project, with a bit of luck it will fly a few times and then get cancelled
Love for the shuttle is nothing more than nostalgia0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89642
Not really sure if you can call it new. Apart from Space X the current batch of US rockets under development are based on older hardware that was retired, or imported tech from Russia/Ukraine/Eu. Apart from the capsule it's all flight tested, off the shelf hardware. The capsule is pretty much a larger version of Apollo.IN REPLY TO POST 12:
SATURN V ATLAS - I do not quite understand the point you are making. If the Americans are developing another rocket then that is good news; hopefully using proper project management techniques.
If you are aware of any new tech please let us know.
Part of the US plan is to develop a large booster. So far only Saturn V and Energia have gotten 100 tonne payloads to orbit.
Or they could assemble the payload in orbit.
When the US abandoned Apollo / Saturn 1B the Russians were the only ones with a similar manned program. Today China, EU, Japan, Russia, Ukraine and India can all launch 20 tonne payloads. Most of these have also proven autonomous docking / interplanetary flight too. Technically India hasn't done this yet, but that's only because they haven't flight tested their new rocket with 4 SRB's instead of 2.
Shuttle is now gone forever. It cost something like $1.5Bn per flight. Soyuz is something like $0.06Bn. It's taking billions to re-develop the SSME's and SRB's which were supposedly off the shelf hardware. After all the hype it only returned ONE satellite.The value of the shuttle is that it is the FIRST re-usable space craft and future models will eventually be better and will be improved based on the experiences with the shuttle.
If it weren't for politics NASA could order an Energia and by using up to 8 boosters match it to a payload of up to 200 tonnes.
The Russians developed a shuttle too. Can't remember if some of the flight models got to orbit first. And like I keep pointing out Dynasoar could have a much cheaper reusable shuttle back in late 60's.
LOLSOLAR PANELS: The new models are MORE PRODUCTIVE than the old models because they have been improved from the originals.
solar is going off in tangents that have nothing to do with the original silicon. phased arrays of resonant aerials. organic dyes, photolysis. That's the wonderful thing about solar we have so many new technologies to commercialise.
Take a read of John Clark's Ignition. Rocket fuels haven't changed much since they stabilised Nitric Acid based oxidisers with Fluoride. So getting to orbit is still pretty much the same thrust to weight ratio. Maybe using lighter alloys for tankage and slightly better engines. 1960's Russian engines are still being used.
JHe pretty much didCOMPUTERS: ... Zuse did not pull his ideas out of thin air
First programmable computer.
First high level language.
etc.
Yes they do. Tsiolkovsky didn't have a shed, Goddard too. These were the guys who figured out that it would take liquid propellants to get to orbit.But:
1. They do not pull their ideas out of thin air.
2. I have not heard of anyone building a fusion reactor or a Mars Space Craft in their garden shed. This takes big investment, project management and organisation.
A 17 year old did make a neutron generator in a shed.
Throwing money at a problem doesn't guarantee a solution. If you want to lift a bigger payload just build a bigger rocket. much of the US space flight program is the history of trying to improve efficiency instead.
It was a disaster from day one. they didn't spend enough up front to develop a fully reusable one. Russian shuttle used a separate launcher that has other uses. The boosters were also used as Zenit rockets.RE-USABLE CRAFT: If there are re-usable craft being developed then I hope that they are developing and learning from the innovations and problems encountered with the space shuttle; to do anything else would be poor project management. I do not think the shuttle was a joke; it was a FIRST. and as such there would have been problems.
LOLNEW AMERICAN ROCKET: If the Americans are developing a new rocket utilising existing technology from the shuttle program and developing it further then I cannot see what is wrong with that. It is what I would expect them to do using proper project management techniques.
The shuttle was sized to launch KH spy satellites and the wings were to allow it to go cross country from polar launches. So 78 tonnes, 10 times the mass of a Soyuz orbiter, which means you need a rocket 10 times a big to get off the ground. Like I said it only returned one satellite. And the military pretty much ignored it. And then there was the plan to use it to launch liquid propelled rockets.
They are re-inventing the wheel at great expense, and taking their time too. And I'll say it again, they are using off the shelf flight proven hardware, so not exactly rocket science. The service module for Orion is an improved model of ESA's ATV which was used to carry cargo to the ISS.
From yesterday http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34767799
Keep in mind that SLS is based on Ares-V and that was in development even while the shuttle was still flying. And when/if SLS is finally delivered it will match what Energia did back in 1988. That is being able to launch a mass as big as a shuttle using the engines and boosters used on a shuttle launch. 30 years later.The test model for what will become the European-built "back end" of America's Orion spaceship has been despatched to the US.
...
The time schedule is extremely tight, however. Airbus was contracted for the job just one year ago.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Not really sure if you can call it new. Apart from Space X the current batch of US rockets under development are based on older hardware that was retired, or imported tech from Russia/Ukraine/Eu. Apart from the capsule it's all flight tested, off the shelf hardware. The capsule is pretty much a larger version of Apollo.
If you are aware of any new tech please let us know.
well new/better engines, maybe not new tech
the new ULA/Blue Origin rockets will be powered by a new engine, Blue and SpaceX seem to be working on engines that are very similar in size, Aerojet Rocketdyne may also be working on a new engine
a lot of new rockets in the works0 -
IN REPLY TO POST 15:
The main point to my thread is that large technological and engineering projects are generally of benefit to mankind; the residual value outweighs the immediate cost (Post 1 and 4).
(Post 7): 'The whole point of technological development is that you learn from previous prototypes and mistakes:
RE-USABLE CRAFT: There are always going to be detractors from all great technological efforts, the hurler in the ditch, but someone has to put a spade in the ground if something is going to be built. I am not a 'Lover' of the space shuttle but I am certainly in favour of the space shuttle project, and projects like it, in pushing forward the boundaries of science and technology. To say that the shuttle was a joke is grossly unfair to the engineers who worked on it; it was a first effort and had technical dIfficulties; all large engineering and technology groundbreaking projects have difficulties. I would expect the new designs to learn from those difficulties. The shuttle program was cancelled due to the tragic accident in 2003 when the US public lost interest. The moon program was cancelled in the early seventies when the US public lost interest for different reasons.
NEW AMERICAN ROCKET: NASA, unlike the Russian program, has suffered from haphazard funding. This is partly due to the four year election system; politicians want immediate results; large engineering and technological projects generally take a long time to deliver. Kennedy was unusual in 1962 when he committed America to go to the Moon knowing that he would not be in power when it happened; even if he had served two terms. Certainly there were ' cold war' reasons for doing so. But this was a great time for a young engineer to join NASA. Unfortunately, in the early seventies somebody dropped the ball.
The Russians had different problems. They did not have the same cyclic funding problems, until the 1980's. They scored many early successes in the 'space-race' mainly due to their inspirational leader Sergei Korolev. Korolev was a top engineer but his greatest ability was his skill in project management. When he died in 1966 it deeply affected the Russian project; otherwise they may well have beaten the American s to the moon. This shows the value of a top notch project manager at the head of these projects; absolutely vital. The Russians eventually pulled themselves together and went on to develop space station technology; at which they are the experts. NASA will thrive too if given consistent funding and without the unwelcome interference of politicians who want immediate results.
IN REPLY TO POST 16:
ZUSE: He did not pull his ideas out of thin air. He developed existing ideas. He was resourceful, brilliant and innovative certainly.( Refer to my point about seminars before the war). Zuse also went to University where ideas would have been discussed.
In the same way that Bell developed the telephone, Baird developed the TV, Marconi developed Wireless, Edison developed the light bulb. They did so by building on existing technology and ideas and bringing it further.
SHUTTLE: See the answer above
SOLAR PANELS: The new solar panels are improvements on the originals using new technology in the same way that a Ford Mondeo is an improvement on the Model T Ford. There is nothing in a Mondeo that resembles the Model T but that does not mean it is not an improvement on the original. This is called technological development. You would not have the new panels if you did not have the originals to improve on. Otherwise why didn't Henry Ford just build a Mondeo in 1924?
GARDEN SHEDS: People can carry out experiments in their garden sheds; provided that they do not breach environmental legislation. Many innovations can be achieved in such a manner; which is great. Figuring out propellants is a small scale experiment using a few test tubes; brilliant nevertheless. As for the kid who carried out a radioactive FISSION experiment; this is irrelevant.; resourceful kid though! To build a functioning Mars Space-craft or a FUSION reactor would probably take a little bit more than that. Neither could be done without a large budget, properly managed and a very large garden shed!0 -
RE-USABLE CRAFT: There are always going to be detractors from all great technological efforts, the hurler in the ditch, but someone has to put a spade in the ground if something is going to be built. I am not a 'Lover' of the space shuttle but I am certainly in favour of the space shuttle project, and projects like it, in pushing forward the boundaries of science and technology. To say that the shuttle was a joke is grossly unfair to the engineers who worked on it; it was a first effort and had technical dIfficulties; all large engineering and technology groundbreaking projects have difficulties. I would expect the new designs to learn from those difficulties. The shuttle program was cancelled due to the tragic accident in 2003 when the US public lost interest. The moon program was cancelled in the early seventies when the US public lost interest for different reasons.
I don't have a problem with the engineers who worked on the shuttle, with something like the shuttle its very rare for the engineers to be the problem, the problem with the shuttle was the politicians, without idiot politicians involved it would have been a very different beast and may even have workedNEW AMERICAN ROCKET: NASA, unlike the Russian program, has suffered from haphazard funding. This is partly due to the four year election system; politicians want immediate results; large engineering and technological projects generally take a long time to deliver. Kennedy was unusual in 1962 when he committed America to go to the Moon knowing that he would not be in power when it happened; even if he had served two terms. Certainly there were ' cold war' reasons for doing so. But this was a great time for a young engineer to join NASA. Unfortunately, in the early seventies somebody dropped the ball.
The Russians had different problems. They did not have the same cyclic funding problems, until the 1980's. They scored many early successes in the 'space-race' mainly due to their inspirational leader Sergei Korolev. Korolev was a top engineer but his greatest ability was his skill in project management. When he died in 1966 it deeply affected the Russian project; otherwise they may well have beaten the American s to the moon. This shows the value of a top notch project manager at the head of these projects; absolutely vital. The Russians eventually pulled themselves together and went on to develop space station technology; at which they are the experts. NASA will thrive too if given consistent funding and without the unwelcome interference of politicians who want immediate results.
I agree with a lot of this, its true that Korolev's death was a massive blow to the Soviet program, but even if he lived longer, I'm not sure if the result would have been any different, even if the N1 program went as planned it would have been well into the 70s before the Soviets reached the Moon, the US were ahead of them by the mid 60s it just took the Moon landing to hammer the point home
BTW who do you think is our modern day Korolev/Von BraunIN REPLY TO POST 16:
In the same way that Bell developed the telephone, Baird developed the TV, Marconi developed Wireless, Edison developed the light bulb. They did so by building on existing technology and ideas and bringing it further.
the telephone was invented by Elisha Grey, Philo Farnsworth invented the television, and Tesla invented the radio, you can let Edison have the light bulbGARDEN SHEDS: People can carry out experiments in their garden sheds; provided that they do not breach environmental legislation. Many innovations can be achieved in such a manner; which is great. Figuring out propellants is a small scale experiment using a few test tubes; brilliant nevertheless. As for the kid who carried out a radioactive FISSION experiment; this is irrelevant.; resourceful kid though! To build a functioning Mars Space-craft or a FUSION reactor would probably take a little bit more than that. Neither could be done without a large budget, properly managed and a very large garden shed!
A Mars space craft is easy enough to build all the tech exists, its easy if you have a big enough rocket
we don't really need a fusion reactor in space or Mars, but it could be done easy enough, again with the right rocket0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89642
I'm not letting Edison have anything. Swan patented the same day. And both were incremental improvements on previous designs. And he missed out big time on the Edison Effect.the telephone was invented by Elisha Grey, Philo Farnsworth invented the television, and Tesla invented the radio, you can let Edison have the light bulb
Anyway Antonio Meucci invented the telephone.
Maxwell invented radio. Hertz proved it worked. DeForest discovered valves.
Armstrong invented most of the good stuff that made radio work well.
But in truth a lot of "inventions" were impossible until the right materials and technologies were available. And once they were available it was a lot easier to join the dots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries It's one reason I'm not a big fan of patents. At least in the old days they could ask you to prove whatever it was actually worked so much harder to block others.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
Maxwell invented radio. Hertz proved it worked. DeForest discovered valves.
Armstrong invented most of the good stuff that made radio work well.
But in truth a lot of "inventions" were impossible until the right materials and technologies were available. And once they were available it was a lot easier to join the dots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries It's one reason I'm not a big fan of patents. At least in the old days they could ask you to prove whatever it was actually worked so much harder to block others.
saying Maxwell invented radio is a bit like saying Newton invented gravity
I can agree with much of the rest0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89642
Apart from SpaceX most of "new rockets" are revamped or rebadged. Most of the engine work is because politics means they can't just use Russian engines.a lot of new rockets in the works
They are re-inventing 1960's technology. And it's not as if they are doing it any quicker or cheaper than it took to develop the originals.
I'm not saying the F35 was developed from the Yak141 but there was a lot of technology transfer from Yakovlev to Lockheed-Martin in the 1990's.
They aren't trying to make a Mondeo out of a Model-T. They are trying to make a new van, starting from the original Ford Transit. Or perhaps a new replacement for the Boeing 737 or the Lockheed C1300 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Apart from SpaceX most of "new rockets" are revamped or rebadged. Most of the engine work is because politics means they can't just use Russian engines.
They are re-inventing 1960's technology. And it's not as if they are doing it any quicker or cheaper than it took to develop the originals.
I think there is a little more to it than politics, ULA really do need a new rocket with lower launch costs, they just can't continue as they are, even if there was no problem with the Russian engines
the strange thing is Blue Origin are now working on an engine for themselves and one of their future competitors, I think Blue Origin will end up buying ULA
Also I think they will end up doing it quicker than the originals, they have much better tools for engine design and fabrication, its all happening behind closed doors we don't really know how far along they are
We may get some more information on SpaceX plans after the next launch in December0 -
IN REPLY TO POST 19
NEW KOROLEV/ VON BRAUN: The Russians kept Korolev's identity a secret for years.; he was so important to them I honestly do not know who could step into these shoes today. There will be someone out there; it is just a matter of finding them;. But an inspirational and effective manager for any of these large projects is as important as having proper funding, limited political interference and an attainable goal.
As you say the basic technology exists to go to Mars it just needs the organisation and the right people to develop it further, put it together and make it happen. The legacy value of such a project should, if run properly, well outstrip the initial costs.0 -
Elon Musk is the modern Korlev/Von Braun, but unlike them his rockets or plans can't be cancelled by politicians on a whim, so in the end he may achieve far more0
-
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89642
And lot of money. Cheaper to go to asteroids, unless you are going to Mars one way.As you say the basic technology exists to go to Mars it just needs the organisation and the right people to develop it further, put it together and make it happen.
What does this mean even ?The legacy value of such a project should, if run properly, well outstrip the initial costs.
It just generic wishful thinking, like those inspirations facebook posters.
Especially given the legacy of the Space Shuttle. 135 missions for a total program cost of €209. Which works out at over 1.5Bn per mission. Compare that to the Russian charging NASA $70m a seat to the ISS because they can. Dennis Tito only paid $20m back when the Russians needed hard currency. And Soyuz has gone through it's teething problems. It's a pig, it's cramped, landings are pretty much like being in a car crash, all that it's got going for it is that's is cheap, reliable and simple. To return from orbit in Soyuz it's more or less press the big red button and hold on for dear life. With the Shuttle one of the manual steps involved orientating the underside to face the sun for several orbits to heat up the tires.
Another legacy of the Space Shuttle is that China didn't have manned spaceflight capability until 2003. But they still have it.
Take a read of this http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1 from 2010
Look at this bit.
I invite you to research what happened to the money NASA used to pay for manned spaceflight since then.So, instead of a flat $5-billion-a-year funding planned, the Aeronautics and Other Science Activities started at $8 billion in 2004, growing to $9 billion in 2010 and is scheduled to top $11 billion by 2015. As for the Exploration Programs (which included the Constellation lunar program), it started at only $1.6 billion in 2004 (half of what the Bush graph shows) to grew to $4 billion in 2010. And, although President Obama announced its cancellation, this program will continue to be funded at the $4-billion level until at least 2015. This $4-billion-a-year funding is as high of what it is planned for ISS!
For what purpose will this $20 billion be spent over the next five years? That’s the question!
In other news
both the Russians and Indians have also started flight testing their new manned launch systems.0
Advertisement