NASA forgot how it got to the moon

[Psy]

When I saw it I just had to laugh at NASA

The Technical Record of the Apollo Program? A Space Junkyard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxc7YV2QXzA)

[AGITprop]

Of course they 'forgot. :)

But let us NOT have this argument again.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course they 'forgot. :)

But let us NOT have this argument again.

Yes, because the Hoax Believers have nothing to argue with. :glare:

[Psy]

I found it funny that superior capitalist USA has worse record keeping then the bureaucratic mess of the USSR, they probably have better luck going to Russia and asking them how they got men into space, Russia actually still has their files in their huge archives, I wonder why NASA doesn't just sent their engineers to Russia to track down old Russian space technology since they are actually well documented.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I found it funny that superior capitalist USA has worse record keeping then the bureaucratic mess of the USSR, they probably have better luck going to Russia and asking them how they got men into space, Russia actually still has their files in their huge archives, I wonder why NASA doesn't just sent their engineers to Russia to track down old Russian space technology since they are actually well documented.

NASA is horrendously underfunded and as a result sometimes has to resort to using Russian facilities.

As for the record-keeping side of things, a lot of the work on the Apollo project was done by contractors rather than being done in-house by NASA - hence the reason why the records are so spotty, as it seems likely that the some of the various contracting companies will have succumbed to the vagaries of capitalism in the time between the Apollo project and now.

Whereas the Russian space agency probably did all of their work in-house, and thus it was much easier to create a cohesive archive and keep track of everything.

But in any case, why the fuck would anyone want to use 1960's technology anyway? Nowadays we have cheap microchips and ion drives and dozens of other useful advances.

[Psy]

NASA is horrendously underfunded and as a result sometimes has to resort to using Russian facilities.

As for the record-keeping side of things, a lot of the work on the Apollo project was done by contractors rather than being done in-house by NASA - hence the reason why the records are so spotty, as it seems likely that the some of the various contracting companies will have succumbed to the vagaries of capitalism in the time between the Apollo project and now.

Whereas the Russian space agency probably did all of their work in-house, and thus it was much easier to create a cohesive archive and keep track of everything.

But in any case, why the fuck would anyone want to use 1960's technology anyway? Nowadays we have cheap microchips and ion drives and dozens of other useful advances.
Because US President Bush said NASA is going to put a American on Mars and NASA doesn't have rockets large anymore or the technology to build such large rockets that were used to put men on the moon.

[piet11111]

But in any case, why the fuck would anyone want to use 1960's technology anyway? Nowadays we have cheap microchips and ion drives and dozens of other useful advances.

for the same reason NASA looked at medieval suits of armor when they where designing their space suits because they work so well.

you can go all High-tech but if you can do it with low-tech means then that would often be better.

[Raúl Duke]

you can go all High-tech but if you can do it with low-tech means then that would often be better.

Reminds me of that story about NASA making a pen that can write in space while the Russians all along were using pencil...

[Kami]

Reminds me of that story about NASA making a pen that can write in space while the Russians all along were using pencil...
myth, I'm afraid. A pencil would be an awful idea in space; graphite everywhere.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because US President Bush said NASA is going to put a American on Mars and NASA doesn't have rockets large anymore or the technology to build such large rockets that were used to put men on the moon.

They can still design suitable rockets from first principles. We did in the 60s, so we can do it today, but taking advantage of advancements and new inventions in the area of space technology.


for the same reason NASA looked at medieval suits of armor when they where designing their space suits because they work so well.

You're kidding right? :laugh: Spacesuits as actually used by NASA have nothing in common with medieval armour.


you can go all High-tech but if you can do it with low-tech means then that would often be better.

Luddite nonsense.

[Psy]

They can still design suitable rockets from first principles. We did in the 60s, so we can do it today, but taking advantage of advancements and new inventions in the area of space technology.

Based on what designs? The current rockets are much smaller and simpler then the Saturn V and N-1. The Ares rockets is the current NASA project to recreate the Saturn V with modern technology.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Based on what designs?

What part of "from first principles" don't you understand? A new moon rocket would not be based on anything, it would be a completely new design.


The current rockets are much smaller and simpler then the Saturn V and N-1.

They're smaller because most of them are only designed to lift payloads into low earth orbit. In order to get to higher orbits or to the Moon, one simply has to scale them up, add stages, etc. As for simpler, I have n o idea how you came to that conclusion. The Saturn V may have had the largest amount of parts for an individual machine, but is modern microchip really "simpler" than a bundle of twisted wires (which is what constituted the computer for the Saturn V)?


The Ares rockets is the current NASA project to recreate the Saturn V with modern technology.

But they will be using microchips and not valves in the electronics.

[Psy]

What part of "from first principles" don't you understand? A new moon rocket would not be based on anything, it would be a completely new design.

NASA rather simply modernize the Saturn V design.



They're smaller because most of them are only designed to lift payloads into low earth orbit. In order to get to higher orbits or to the Moon, one simply has to scale them up, add stages, etc. As for simpler, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The Saturn V may have had the largest amount of parts for an individual machine, but is modern microchip really "simpler" than a bundle of twisted wires (which is what constituted the computer for the Saturn V)?

The Russian N-1 rocket had more parts then the Saturn V making the N-1 having the largest amount of parts for an individal machines. As for simpler, the N-1 rocket had 54 rocket engines (the N-1 was a beast that focused on getting thrust on the first stage), the Saturn V had 11 rockets so the large rockets back then were much more complex.



But they will be using microchips and not valves in the electronics.
They still need to go back and study how the old large rockets work.

[piet11111]

You're kidding right? :laugh: Spacesuits as actually used by NASA have nothing in common with medieval armour.

you would be surprised they looked at medieval armor to see how they dealt with the same movement issues the astronauts would face in their spacesuits.
those medieval armorers had century's of experience with dealing with this problem its only logical for NASA to have a good look to see if they could learn a thing or 2.



Luddite nonsense.

i did not mean that in a big way (human labor over machine) but more regarding small details.
when it comes to space missions you have to keep yourself from over-engineering and making things complicated.
if you can use a simple device that performs as it should then that would be better then going for the most complicated high-tech solution.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you would be surprised they looked at medieval armor to see how they dealt with the same movement issues the astronauts would face in their spacesuits.

They may well have done... but they decided not to go for a rigid "armour-like" design, instead favouring a design that has nothing in common with medieval armour.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/SpaceSuit2007sized.jpg

This is the spacesuit used by NASA as of 2007.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/35053507.jpg

And this is some medieval plate armour.

Notice the significant lack of similarities?


those medieval armorers had century's of experience with dealing with this problem its only logical for NASA to have a good look to see if they could learn a thing or 2.

Medieval armourers never had to deal with the issues of oxygen supply, protection from the vacuum, radiation hazards, micrometeoroids, harsh sunlight, and so and so forth. The comparitively minor issue of flexibility was totally bypassed by not using a rigid design.

There's a world of difference between designing a spacesuit and designing armour to protect against medieval weaponry.


did not mean that in a big way (human labor over machine) but more regarding small details.

Such as what?


when it comes to space missions you have to keep yourself from over-engineering and making things complicated.

How so? Be specific.


if you can use a simple device that performs as it should then that would be better then going for the most complicated high-tech solution.

As the pencil myth cited above illustrates, things often aren't as simple as that. Especially when one is dealing with a relatively unknown environment such as space.

[sonicbluetm]

I don't know about this theory. All I know is that the footage of the module taking off of the lunar surface looked REALLY fake, and more like an episode of 60s Star Trek.

[piet11111]

they only looked at mobility issues meaning movement of neck shoulders hands and elbows hips knees and ankles.
and since its proven that you can move in a suit of armor they thought it worthy of a look.

also in a vacuum such as space having a pressurized suit will get you serious movement problems as the suit will tend to turn into a balloon


Such as what?

such as say 60's computing devices over modern computers the simplicity of old computers make them more reliable and easier to fix and if they do the job just as good as modern computers i would pick reliability.


How so? Be specific.

well the ISS toilet comes to mind they broke the pump and now they can not use it and have to await the arrival of a new pump from earth.
i think it could have been designed to be less Dependant on complicated parts or at least have more redundancy because going to mars without the shitter would be next to impossible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know about this theory. All I know is that the footage of the module taking off of the lunar surface looked REALLY fake, and more like an episode of 60s Star Trek.

Because you've actually been to the Moon and seen a lunar module take off for yourself, right? :rolleyes:


they only looked at mobility issues meaning movement of neck shoulders hands and elbows hips knees and ankles.
and since its proven that you can move in a suit of armor they thought it worthy of a look.

And evidently, they didn't take their inspiration from medieval armour and instead came up with their own design.


also in a vacuum such as space having a pressurized suit will get you serious movement problems as the suit will tend to turn into a balloonWell, obviously they've managed to get around that little difficulty. :rolleyes:


such as say 60's computing devices over modern computers the simplicity of old computers make them more reliable and easier to fix and if they do the job just as good as modern computers i would pick reliability.The problem is that 60s computing devices don't do the job just as good. Also the older technology = more reliable cliche is fallacious, a symptom of the "the good old days" fallacy.

For instance, the Spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_rover) and Opportunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_rover), despite being crammed full of modern technology, have continued operating long past their original mission parameters.


well the ISS toilet comes to mind they broke the pump and now they can not use it and have to await the arrival of a new pump from earth.
i think it could have been designed to be less Dependant on complicated parts or at least have more redundancy because going to mars without the shitter would be next to impossible.I'm not qualified to speak on the inner workings of the ISS toilet, and to be quite frank I very much doubt that you are qualified either. In all likelyhood it probably has to be as complicated as it is for reasons unknown to you or me.

Doubtless the designers of the toilet for a Mars mission will be aware of the facts.

[Pifreak]

NASA is definitely under-funded. It has space shuttles decades old, and launches have to be delayed because of some tiny crack or some fuel gauge malfunction or something. And if they don't do this, occasionally the space shuttle will blow up or disintegrate.

By the way, are their missions even achieving anything important? (other than replacing the astronauts on the ISS)

[Lost In Translation]

The ISS is really really lame. Way over budget, not even done construction (i think), and a pain in the butt for all of us. What will THAT achieve...

The Americans just wanted to go on the moon just to beat the Soviets at the Space Race in the 60s and 70s. Now, they just do it to prove they're not a failure.