How long would it take NASA to build an Apollo space craft today? Could we just dust those blueprints off and start making moonshots while the engineers are still working on Orion?
NASA Question...
- Thread starter BoxWhatBox
- Start date
Not really. Not only do you have to fabricate the spacecraft, but you also have to reproduce the infrastructure that built them.
Orion looks to be a disaster, but building Apollos again isn't a feisable answer.
Rob+
Well the NASA engineers don't like the Ares rockets for starter. Personally, I don't have any serious problems with Orion other then it feels like a step back instead of a step forward. Spaceship I showed us how to get into space on the cheap, why not replicate that using a B-52 or high altitude launch balloon?
Early on, NASA never liked solid rocket engines for manned flight. Once lit, you are committed to launch. The liquid engines could be run up and then aborted if something out of parameters was detected.
I believe that with the solids, you can't jettison the capsule until the engine has burned itself out. While that may also be the case with liquid rockets, you might have a chance of shutting the engine off and then jettisoning.
I agree that Orion seems like a backward step. The shuttle may have been too complicated and fragile, but it just seems so wrong going back to splash downs.
I believe that with the solids, you can't jettison the capsule until the engine has burned itself out. While that may also be the case with liquid rockets, you might have a chance of shutting the engine off and then jettisoning.
I agree that Orion seems like a backward step. The shuttle may have been too complicated and fragile, but it just seems so wrong going back to splash downs.
Well, the most recent design review shows serious red-light issues with things as basic as the crew having enough water. (Crew members should have 2.5 liters per day by standard rule, but NASA has cut it to 2 liters, against medical advice, to save on weight.) The heat shield is currently in doubt. There many systems that are now single fault critical, meaning that the redundancies have been stripped off... all this, and the entire system still weighs too much.
To make matters worse, the Ares I is no better, with thrust oscillation issues that NASA still has no real workable plan for... the blasted launch vehicle is a disaster waiting to happen.
I have no issue with the return to the capsule format, but I am becoming more and more convinced the shortcuts being put into this system have the potential to result in Apollo 1-esque issues, ultimately leading to the loss of a flight crew.
Rob+
I think your right, we're going to lose another flight crew with Orion. The entire program fails to build upon the lessons learned.
I also don't have a problem with a capsule format craft for people moving back and forth to space, but there should be something worthwhile up there for it to dock with. Otherwise, what's the point of sending a flight crew up? NASA needs to commit to a mission that will inspire America's children to learn maths and sciences, not ego missions just to send people into space.
Ares V is fine, but I have an issue with one solid booster as a first stage with no liquid rockets nearby to gymbal the thrust in case the solid motor has uneven thrusting. I don't think the solid rocket will explode, but I do think it may veer off beyond the capacity of the steering flange to compensate and if so the crew are pretty much screwed.
I think they need to make sure Orio is not tied to any one rocket kinda like how previous capsules weren't.
Mercury - Redstone and Atlas
Gemini - Atlas and Titan
Apollo - Saturn IIb and Saturn V
Constellation - Ares I........
Why not have
Constellation - Ares I, Soyuz LV, Falcon 9, Man Rated Delta, Japanese H2, etc etc....
That way you can build a mess of constellation capsules and then use any lift vehicle from around the world to launch the silly things.
I like the idea of using the Falcon 9 or Delta as a fallback in case the Ares I doesn't work out.
I think they need to make sure Orio is not tied to any one rocket kinda like how previous capsules weren't.
Mercury - Redstone and Atlas
Gemini - Atlas and Titan
Apollo - Saturn IIb and Saturn V
Constellation - Ares I........
Why not have
Constellation - Ares I, Soyuz LV, Falcon 9, Man Rated Delta, Japanese H2, etc etc....
That way you can build a mess of constellation capsules and then use any lift vehicle from around the world to launch the silly things.
I like the idea of using the Falcon 9 or Delta as a fallback in case the Ares I doesn't work out.
They're one in the same. You're not going to inspire a lot of children if you beam back groundbreaking yet boring EM readings from the Gum Nebula. Kids don't want to be astronauts because it "betters the nation" or "furthers science". They want to be astronauts because it's fucking cool.
Anywho, to the OP. No. NASA still has the Apollo plans (not like we threw them away), but the ways to build them no longer exist so we'd have to rebuild the structures to build the rockets from 40 years ago and alot of those technologies (such as the technology to reproduce the heat sheild) have been allowed to atrophy
No ego missions are those that risk human lives to do science that robots can do. NASA and the country needs to commit to doing something that will stop the world for a few hours, as we watch the first human in over three decades step foot on the moon, then mars in short order.
Spaceflight, despite its expense, needs to become as routine as landing a multimillion dollar jet on a floating runway. With rockets launching on a weekly basis, ferrying a much larger and diverse group of astronauts to their jobs on the space station, the moon, or for final mission prep for Mars.
As citizens we should not allow our government or NASA to spend billions just to go and "visit" the moon or Mars. Our international priority should be to establish a permanent human presence on those planets, cut our teeth, and in preparation for the moons of Saturn and Jupiter.
To date only 482 humans have every made it into space. That needs to increase by at least 200 people annually. That would send a clear message to the children of the world if you work hard, then its very possible that one day you might join the elite fraternity of astronaut. Creating an influx of scientist and engineers who would push research further and faster then ever before.
NASA harnessed national pride and went from a pineapple size satellite to a man on the moon in less then a decade. If they were to harness human ambition, there is no reason we could not go to the moon and beyond by the end of this decade.
Not really. We just have to end an unpopular war, bring the troops home, and reallocate a healthy chunk of funds to education, manufacturing jobs, and the sciences.
NASA really could this generation's public works projects. To give jobs to talented people that will ultimately benefit all mankind.
Which reminds me of a funny saying; NASA is just the government's version of unemployment for very intelligent people.
We tried that before. Apollo 1. We tried it again. Apollo 13. Again... Challenger. Oh, and just because we are too stupid to learn from our mistakes... Columbia.
Someday spaceflight will be as routine as you or I want it, but not in our lifetimes, and not in the hands of the government.
NASA has plans for a permanently manned base on Luna by 2025. A visit to Mars will, most likely, be followed by a 200+ day stay on the Red Planet. Bases will come, but our technology has to become lighter and more mobile in order to construct a base that will properly shield the crew members at a long-term base from radiation.
Until we tackle that at Mars, a trip to Jupiter would be a suicide mission. Jupiter's radiation alone is lethal, and you aren't going to escape that radiation on any of the Jovian sattelites that we would be most interested in visiting initially. Some scientists don't believe that we'd be much safer even on the ones farthest out.
I thought that the point was for it not to be an elite thing to be an astronaut. If anything kills the space program in the imagination of many today it is the fact that the closest they are ever likely to get to space is flying on a jumbo jet.
There are plenty of reasons, most of them political. Obama has already stated that he would prefer to curtail NASA's budget for a decade and apply the money to education and health care. Screw the Moon and Mars then. McCain hasn't spoken up too much about space, at least that I have heard, during this election cycle, so I can't tell you what his view is... but so long as Spaceflight is in the hands of the government, we are going to see slow going, no matter what the destination... even Low Earth Orbit.
Rob+
It really annoys me that we can mass produce cruise missiles and ICBMs that can be fired in less then an hour and hit targets thousands of miles away. Why can't we expect the same out of manned space flight?
Although, I do think that NASA is taking the right approach by having a crew delivery rocket Ares I and a cargo delivery vehicle Ares V. I don't think human life should be risked ferrying cargo back and forth. That said, I also think that astronauts would willingly take any risk for an opportunity to look down upon the Earth from orbit.
Actually, I have to admit I don't trust NASA to get the job done. Think we could contract Google?
I also think we should not plan on establishing colonies above surface but below. The surface materials should assist in defending the crews from radiation. Also there is some very interesting plastics coming online that are effective against a lot of the ambient radiation floating around space.
Long-term yes, but for the immediate future it is still going to be an elite job for next several decades.
I agree. I was actually think that NASA should hold an open design competition, farmed out to experienced firms to build it.
Because of one word you used. Manned. Who cares if a missile blows up en-route to its target. You just launch another one and do some fault checking, report back to the manufacturer, and go from there. NBD.
You put a man (or woman) on top of it, though... very different thing.
Also, it's the guidance systems of those missiles that are so complex. Their rockets are pretty simple. A far cry from a manned launch vehicle.
I'd feel FAR safer on the Ares V than on the Ares I, given what I've been reading of late out of NASA. Unless something significant changes over there, Ares I is a deathtrap. Mark my words.
I'm all for that!
We need a far more effective mode of transport to orbit before we start heaving up the kind of construction equipment such underground colonies would need. We need a space elevator.
Rob+
Agreed a space elevator would make the most sense, short of that a high altitude launch vehicle carrying a smaller rocket meant to get the crew into orbit with a minimum of fuss. I almost envision an oversized missile slung below a B52, that would drop bank and go. Or maybe the "superman returns" solution.
The problem is that, while those suggestions are great for crew launch, they won't help with moving the massive amounts of payload to LEO that would be necessary to even begin to stage the type of underground lair that you and I feel are vital to the future of our spacefaring.
We need to develop a technology that provides dirt cheap surface to LEO, and we need to have at least one of them in place by the end of the century (a true space elevator will take some time to develop, and we'll still need a slam-bang heavy lift launcher to get it into orbit). Only then will humanity actually be able to get out there and explore on some kind of established footing... making our first step on the journey to the stars.
Rob+
Yes really. Ending Iraq won't do it and doesn't have anything to do with this thread.
NASA's current budget is .25% of the GNP. NASA's Apollo era budget was about 4% of the GNP.
Paying teachers more, reopening steel mills, and more research grants aren't going to matter if you don't reach the kids when their young so they can begin to pursue said careers - and you do that by doing cool shit that grabs their attention like Apollo.
Could we have just landed a Lunar Probe and collect what we wanted? Yeah...and we did, but who was inspired by Pioneer 4 if there would've been no Neil Armstrong?
Who even remembers Pioneer 4? Anyone remember the dozens of unmanned Lunar missions?
But you probably remember something as scientifically insignificant as what some guy from Wapakoneta, Ohio said when he stepped of a ladder.
Iraq? What's Iraq have to do with anything? I was talking about Afghanistan.
Both military actions have put a tremendous strain on the global economy, costing American taxpayers over $200 billion, thousands dead, and thousands more with life altering wounds. Why? Simple, we as a nation were afraid, that fear mutated in anger, and we lashed out. Which has lead to considerable suffering by all involved.
The $200+ billion spent so far could have gone to improving our education, rebuilding American manufacturing, and funding human exploration. All of this would have long-term benefits to the United States and world as a whole?
Similar threads
