71–80 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you mind elaborating on that first point?
The people who did it are dead or dying, the tribal knowledge wasn't written down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, combine ”NASA says contracts to build a lunar lander could be awarded in late February or March.” with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#History . For the LM, the contract was awarded in September 1962, and first flight (unmanned) was in January, 1968. So, even Apollo’s aggressive schedule needed more time to first flight than what NASA would have now between awarding the contract and landing hu…
Did we throw away everything we learned in the apollo program? They won’t be starting from scratch on the design.
Given the advances in control systems, simulation, and materials I think this is very doable, but it's work.
No chance. This isn't the 1950s. We don't just throw people atop rockets anymore. These are vehicles, aircraft. There is absolutely no way any of the current crop of space vehicles could be made ready for a trip to the moon anytime before 2024. Going beyond low orbit, away from the sub-45min return time, is something we haven't done in generations. The craft need to be tested, repeatedly. Each test flight then has to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did we throw away everything we learned in the apollo program? They won’t be starting from scratch on the design.
In addition to technology loss mentioned in other replies, reproducing Apollo designs without major redesigns is not a viable option for simple cost reasons: no NASA program in the foreseeable future will have anything near Apollo's budget, and so any new moon lander will have to be much cheaper. Given the advances in control systems, simulation, and materials I think this is very doable, but it's work.
The money is there. The challenges are mostly, as other's have noted, large changes in safety requirements and general execution challenges for large scale projects in today's America.
'"I am more interested in maximizing the odds of success for this bold undertaking and making it as safe as any human journey into the deep space can be, than I am in having NASA meet arbitrary deadlines," Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson — a Democrat from Texas and the chairwoman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology — said at a recent hearing.' Waiting to make a journey until it is "as safe as can be"…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people who did it are dead or dying, the tribal knowledge wasn't written down.
From my Jewish perspective, I think of it as oral tradition vs written tradition (like the pre-Mishnaic distinction between the Written Law and the Oral Law).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to technology loss mentioned in other replies, reproducing Apollo designs without major redesigns is not a viable option for simple cost reasons: no NASA program in the foreseeable future will have anything near Apollo's budget, and so any new moon lander will have to be much cheaper. Given the advances in control systems, simulation, and materials I think this is very doable, but it's work.
NASA's budget during the Apollo era peacked in 1966 around 4.5 billion. That's about 35 billion in today's dollars. That's a fair bit more than the actual NASA budget of 23.5 billion but it's not all that far off. The money is there. The challenges are mostly, as other's have noted, large changes in safety requirements and general execution challenges for large scale projects in today's America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NASA's budget during the Apollo era peacked in 1966 around 4.5 billion. That's about 35 billion in today's dollars. That's a fair bit more than the actual NASA budget of 23.5 billion but it's not all that far off. The money is there. The challenges are mostly, as other's have noted, large changes in safety requirements and general execution challenges for large scale projects in today's America.
During Apollo a majority of that budget was dedicated to Apollo. Modern NASA maintains the ISS, multiple observatories, satellites, the DSN, and dozens of similar projects, budget alone does not paint a clear picture
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2020_...
That said, an interesting thought experiment would be to put a Falcon 9 second stage to 'sleep' on an up coming mission for a couple of weeks and then have it wake up and relight. If that works push it to a month.
With a system like that you could Falcon Heavy to launch a return stage into a Lunar transfer orbit and have it go into orbit at the moon. Then launch one into LEO. Finally launch a service module and landing craft rendezvous with the stage in orbit, burn to the moon. Land, take off, rendezvous with the lunar return stage, and fly back. This uses all "known" technology from SpaceX with a new lunar lander but we know that SpaceX has the propulsive landing chops to pull that off.
It avoids the currently "unknown" technology of refueling a cryogenic rocket in space.
It does require a reasonable launch cadence on SpaceX's part which is why the experiment of can you leave a cryogenic stage around and relight it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can always hire a commercial rocket SpaceX used to be their long-time partner.
It needs more than just the rocket. You also need a lunar lander, and all we have right now are paper sketches of designs that would take more than four years to finish and build, on conventional timelines. (One wild card is the SpaceX Starship, which Elon is talking about having some lunar capability for, on extremely aggressive timelines. But Starship is a risky project in all sorts of ways -- besides which, before…