I'm going to sound like a conspiracy nut, but...

Gonzo Mackem said:
Hardly that difficult you'd think they've got an unmanned one on Mars! Maybe should just ask ChatGPT to knock one up.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem is the differing approach to human safety and regulatory compliance compared to back then.

I remember seeing a documentary about the original landings and they were more concerned about beating the Ruskies than they were safeguarding people. The astronauts at the time accepted this risk.

An unmanned vehicle will be subject to less rigorous specifications.

And to ensure the people going are as safe as possible, multiple safety systems need to be developed.
 


Kevj said:
I think part of the problem is the differing approach to human safety and regulatory compliance compared to back then.

I remember seeing a documentary about the original landings and they were more concerned about beating the Ruskies than they were safeguarding people. The astronauts at the time accepted this risk.

An unmanned vehicle will be subject to less rigorous specifications.

And to ensure the people going are as safe as possible, multiple safety systems need to be developed.
Click to expand...
Good points.

The change in attitude to risk could be a major handicap for gov sponsored space exploration. Private will be a slightly different matter as long as it doesn't hurt profits.
 
Gonzo Mackem said:
Good points.

The change in attitude to risk could be a major handicap for gov sponsored space exploration. Private will be a slightly different matter as long as it doesn't hurt profits.
Click to expand...

I agree. As soon as there’s a financial reward, private investment will out-fund governments.

I part suspect this is why Musk and Bezos are in the race early.
 
The Apollo program would never have passed a modern HAZID and risk assessment.

The lack of redundancy on some of the kit was staggering.

The moon buggy was one that springs to mind. Any failure and the crew on it were basically doomed, could never of got back to the lander.
 
The Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs were all ‘money no object’ missions (although a famous quote around these states every single component was built by the lowest bidder) with one goal in mind… Beat the Russians to the Moon.

That drive just isn’t there now so budgets are a lot more considered.
 
Baloo said:
Can’t build the Saturn Vs any more, NASA now has 17k staff instead of the 396k it had to run the Apollo programme, things need to be more cost effective, need to be innovative to be worthwhile (pointless spending 5% of your GDP to achieve nothing new)…
Click to expand...
Current man power and budgets aren't what the OP is on about mind. The technology that was used for the Apollo program is no longer there and has been destroyed. They have to do everything from scratch which will cost a lot of money.

I think the OP was asking where has the Apollo tech gone?

Fuck knows is the answer.
 
HorsePills said:
You'd be hard pushed to make a 60s TV from modern components like so a spacecraft might be tricky. Wouldn't just be a case of following the same plans and chucking new stuff in where the old gear was.
Click to expand...
But we still have functioning and better TV's now though, using your analogy. Where are the evolved space programs? We should be on manned missions to Mars now, not scrambling about trying to do stuff that was done 60 years ago. Doesn't NASA still get something like 50billion a year from their government?
 
Nasser Butt-Head said:
But we still have functioning and better TV's now though, using your analogy. Where are the evolved space programs? We should be on manned missions to Mars now, not scrambling about trying to do stuff that was done 60 years ago. Doesn't NASA still get something like 50billion a year from their government?
Click to expand...
My argument there would be that TVs have been in use and production since then, it's in manufacturer's interests to come up with more cost effective ways to produce them and keep up with broadcast technology.

The last mission to the moon was in 1972 so you're talking about a fifty year technology gap in terms of craft capable of that. In terms of evolved space programs I suppose you've got the ISS, the James Webb telescope, the rover missions etc., but nothing when it comes to sending manned craft to land on another planet or moon and then return. The likes of Space X which is a commercial company have only been going 20 year and we're probably seeing the benefit in what they bring when they are restrained by budget and have a need to produce rockets that are more cost effective.

According to the BBC (Apollo in 50 numbers: The cost) Nasa funding peaked at 5% of government spend in 1965 and today it's about a fifth of that. Total cost of the Apollo missions about $170bn in today's money.
Teed said:
I want to know how we lost the technology we had, that allowed phone calls to the moon from a landline, with so little delay???

Click to expand...
Those signals travel at the speed of light don't they? 1.3s to reach the moon, 1.3s back again. You can hear on that video there's a delay in communication from earth and then back again from the astronauts.
 
Last edited:
HorsePills said:
Those signals travel at the speed of light don't they? 1.3s to reach the moon, 1.3s back again. You can hear on that video there's a delay in communication from earth and then back again from the astronauts.
Click to expand...

The delay for radio waves between the earth and moon is only around 2.5 seconds.
 
citybythesea said:
Elon musks rockets regularly blow up
Click to expand...
is incorrect, last year they (spacex) launched just short of 200 falcon 9 rockets all of which did not blow up and most successfully completed their mission launching satellites and returning to Earth some boosters are approaching 20 successful flights and reuse.

However spacex are now building starship which is massive and being prototyped, developed and tested this is what to the general public is ‘blowing up’ but it’s never been done before and they have only flown twice (the 3rd test flight is days away), and every time the goals spacex set themselves are exceeded but the press being the press say it ‘blew up’ for headlines.

The falcon 9 did the same during development years ago but now is the most successful rocket ever and last year launched over 80% of the worlds cargo to orbit

nasa are relying on spacex for future moon missions, Artemis Is too expensive
Quintessence said:
Why don't they just do what they did in 1969-1972? NASA don't have the technology apparently 🤔

www.bbc.co.uk

Artemis: Nasa delays crewed return to the Moon's surface

The space agency says astronauts won't be walking on the Moon again until September 2026.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

no budget
 
Last edited:
cornish mackem said:
How many of those 400k staff wouldn’t have a role today because of the advanced computer software? I can imagine the admin for instance would be a fraction of what was needed. They still put stuff up there so a small increase would be needed but it wouldn’t go anywhere near old numbers
Click to expand...

But software does nothing unless its built and written with commands. There isnt advanced software just laid around for them to pick up and use.
Also advanced software then requires advanced hardware and that tends to not be as robust against freezing temps of space and huge temps of re-entry
 
Hue Jorgan said:
is incorrect, last year they (spacex) launched just short of 200 falcon 9 rockets all of which did not blow up and most successfully completed their mission launching satellites and returning to Earth some boosters are approaching 20 successful flights and reuse.

However spacex are now building starship which is massive and being prototyped, developed and tested this is what to the general public is ‘blowing up’ but it’s never been done before and they have only flown twice (the 3rd test flight is days away), and every time the goals spacex set themselves are exceeded but the press being the press say it ‘blew up’ for headlines.

The falcon 9 did the same during development years ago but now is the most successful rocket ever and last year launched over 80% of the worlds cargo to orbit

nasa are relying on spacex for future moon missions, Artemis Is too expensive


no budget
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

Back
Top