45 Years Ago We Landed Men on the Moon

Rucking_Fetard · 16-07-2014 2:05am #1

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/07/45-years-ago-we-landed-men-on-the-moon/100775/

Stanlex · 16-07-2014 2:12am

We did f*** all.

JK.

shedweller · 16-07-2014 10:15am

Stanlex wrote: »

We did f*** all.

JK.

Oh really! Go on, elaborate!

Rucking_Fetard · 17-07-2014 1:16am

How they assembled Apollo 11

Beeker · 17-07-2014 2:48pm

shedweller wrote: »

Oh really! Go on, elaborate!

Don't feed the troll

Calina · 20-07-2014 11:48am

I can't think of a single politician coming up with something like "We Choose To Go To the Moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard" in today's era.

Great that they got there. Sorry they stopped going there.

tricky D · 20-07-2014 1:57pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70bFsUdepyA

nokia69 · 20-07-2014 5:07pm

Calina wrote: »

I can't think of a single politician coming up with something like "We Choose To Go To the Moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard" in today's era.

Great that they got there. Sorry they stopped going there.

we will be back on the Moon very soon

its closer than you think

emo72 · 20-07-2014 11:01pm

nokia69 wrote: »

we will be back on the Moon very soon

its closer than you think

i was under the impression that if we had to go to the moon again we would struggle to get there in a decade? all that knowledge and expertise is lost. mothballed and forgotten.

nokia69 · 20-07-2014 11:42pm

emo72 wrote: »

i was under the impression that if we had to go to the moon again we would struggle to get there in a decade? all that knowledge and expertise is lost. mothballed and forgotten.

the knowledge is still there, the US, Russia, China, and Europe could all do it if they wanted

the falcon heavy will launch next year, you could send people to Moon with multiple FH launches, 3 would be enough

but I don't think it will happen that way, SpaceX have started work on a rocket that will make the Saturn V look small, you don't build a rocket that big for com sats or ISS missions

emo72 · 20-07-2014 11:57pm

well the US had the experience but all that staff are long gone. we have been stuck in LEO ever since, only probes getting out into deep space. russia china and europe have never done anything like it before, so theres no way of knowing of they could achieve it.

all im saying is i wouldnt have the faith that it could be done. and it would take a lot longer than people think.

great idea for a thread anyway:pac:

shedweller · 21-07-2014 12:34am

Well, for what its worth, i was talking to a lad from reaction engines yesterday at farnborough and they are well on their way to making their engine a reality.
There is still a drive for adventure and understanding. We'll never lose that as a species.
Their engine will hopefully become a reality and maybe we can see some serious improvement in space exploration.
The f-35 has cost $400bn so far and its just a killing machine! Imagine how far that money could go on useful technology!

Hotblack Desiato · 21-07-2014 12:35am

Weren't many of the Saturn-era blueprints lost? They're all in imperial anyway :pac: and pretty much useless in any case in the CAD era.

The only real question is who is going to pay, and why would they bother. "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." - The Right Stuff

shedweller · 21-07-2014 12:51am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Weren't many of the Saturn-era blueprints lost? They're all in imperial anyway :pac: and pretty much useless in any case in the CAD era.

The only real question is who is going to pay, and why would they bother. "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." - The Right Stuff

See theres the funny thing about funding. Taxpayers (not us, we just bailout banks nowadays) are already funding the military by orders of magnitude more than space exploration. To say the military is more important than space exploration is frankly bizarre. But people in general are very stupid arent they!
Thats why i enjoyed my chat with a lad from reaction engines yesterday. They are getting funding and are pushing ahead with this game changing technology. Ok, it wont take us to interstellar destinations but it certainly ups the game here on earth. And more of it i say!

Hotblack Desiato · 21-07-2014 1:01am

shedweller wrote: »

See theres the funny thing about funding. Taxpayers (not us, we just bailout banks nowadays) are already funding the military by orders of magnitude more than space exploration. To say the military is more important than space exploration is frankly bizarre. But people in general are very stupid arent they!
Thats why i enjoyed my chat with a lad from reaction engines yesterday. They are getting funding and are pushing ahead with this game changing technology. Ok, it wont take us to interstellar destinations but it certainly ups the game here on earth. And more of it i say!

It's HOTOL and Skylon all over again. Don't get your hopes up.

Chemical engines of any type are just more of the same, not a game changer. I'd like to see pre-cooled engines and hybrid air-breather rockets and hypersonic airliners too, but realistically the energy budget is never going to be economic. We can't even make a supersonic business jet (predicted every decade for the last five) pay its way so a hypersonic airliner is just a flight of fantasy. Unfortunately.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-07-2014 1:07am

shedweller wrote: »

To say the military is more important than space exploration is frankly bizarre. But people in general are very stupid arent they!

You wouldn't be saying that if you lived in Ukraine or Israel or many other places I could mention where there is a real chance bad guys will be shooting at you.

shedweller · 21-07-2014 1:08am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's HOTOL and Skylon all over again. Don't get your hopes up.

Chemical engines of any type are just more of the same, not a game changer. I'd like to see pre-cooled engines and hybrid air-breather rockets and hypersonic airliners too, but realistically the energy budget is never going to be economic. We can't even make a supersonic business jet (predicted every decade for the last five) pay its way so a hypersonic airliner is just a flight of fantasy. Unfortunately.

Its not a hypersonic airliner though. Thats a "if things go well we might make this" kind of thing.
Skylon is looking to go into orbit. Yes its only LEO but thats better than shooting "insurgents" with ever more accuracy, right? That accuracy must be down to the mm now eh? (While we see more and more countries laid to waste from said accuracy)
I'm happy with my flights of fantasy. They have a whole lot less killing involved!

shedweller · 21-07-2014 1:09am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You wouldn't be saying that if you lived in Ukraine or Israel or many other places I could mention where there is a real chance bad guys will be shooting at you.

You're not getting the bigger picture here are you?

Hotblack Desiato · 21-07-2014 1:16am

40 years ago the shuttle was supposed to provide cheap LEO too, and we saw how that turned out. Commercial loads don't want to go to LEO anyway.

Snake · 21-07-2014 1:18am

shedweller wrote: »

Oh really! Go on, elaborate!

I'd assume he means we as in we here had no part in it

shedweller · 21-07-2014 1:19am

Ah sure lets keep shelling each other with ever more technical weapons then. Lets see how that pans out. Jeez.
Pessamist much??

Red Nissan · 21-07-2014 1:22am

45 years ago I watched that Live, in Redbarn, at a time in the morning I never knew existed, I was 14 years of age, I was excited, I was perplexed, as I was also with my religion, I had my doubts, those doubts have grown over the years.

mickmackey1 · 21-07-2014 4:30pm

Red Nissan wrote: »

I was excited, I was perplexed, as I was also with my religion, I had my doubts, those doubts have grown over the years.

Thanks very much for that insight, we're all much wiser now :rolleyes:

Maximus Alexander · 21-07-2014 5:33pm

I'm very optimistic about the future of space travel now that there are commercial interests operating in that area. Once it becomes feasible to have a decent holiday in space at a not-completely-insane price I'd say the wealthy will take it up in droves which will fund further development. Space tourism could be what ultimately funds things like asteroid mining, and once that starts we'll be in space for good and the moon will look like a short hop.

Rucking_Fetard · 22-07-2014 2:50am

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/a-reading-list-of-stories-about-the-moon/374708/

And so, to commemorate the moment—45 years ago this weekend!—that some brave men in a rocket finally landed on the lunar surface, we're revisiting some of our favorite moon stories.

http://www.google.com/moon/

Capt'n Midnight · 22-07-2014 11:18pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Weren't many of the Saturn-era blueprints lost? They're all in imperial anyway :pac: and pretty much useless in any case in the CAD era.

The only real question is who is going to pay, and why would they bother. "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." - The Right Stuff

No AFAIK they still have them,

a lot of the suppliers no longer exist and the rigs and moulds would need to be re-made

Also they aren't cheap

Development Cost $: 7,439.600 million. Launch Price $: 431.000 million in 1967 dollars

Later proposal
LEO Payload: 326,500 kg (719,800 lb) to a 185 km orbit at 28.00 degrees. ... 1985 dollars. Flyaway Unit Cost $: 736.600 million.

In today's money that's about 1.4Bn per launch , which isn't that far off what the shuttle cost

Red Nissan · 22-07-2014 11:55pm

The really sad thing is the lack of interest in this thread.

Ping Chow Chi · 23-07-2014 1:55pm

Would a space elevator, if at all feasible, make more sense than travelling on rockets to get into orbit?

Maximus Alexander · 23-07-2014 2:14pm

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Would a space elevator, if at all feasible, make more sense than travelling on rockets to get into orbit?

Yes, but the part in bold is the key bit. :P

Capt'n Midnight · 23-07-2014 9:08pm

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Would a space elevator, if at all feasible, make more sense than travelling on rockets to get into orbit?

not much use for humans as you'd get slowly cooked in the Van Allen radiation belts

a fast elevator might travel 10m/s

GEO is 10,000 hours away

Maximus Alexander · 23-07-2014 11:38pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

not much use for humans as you'd get slowly cooked in the Van Allen radiation belts

a fast elevator might travel 10m/s

GEO is 10,000 hours away

That's a bit pessimistic. You could get humans into LEO in about 10 hours at those speeds and for a much lower cost.

Of course current space elevator designs wouldn't be able to carry humans, but then we're not building one at present.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-07-2014 11:50pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That's a bit pessimistic. You could get humans into LEO in about 10 hours at those speeds and for a much lower cost.

Of course current space elevator designs wouldn't be able to carry humans, but then we're not building one at present.

No you can't.

The humans will be 100Km up but only have 1,000mph orbital velocity out of the 18,000mph they need to avoid going splat sometime after they step off the elevator

Ping Chow Chi · 24-07-2014 11:22am

Why would the elevator be constricted to 10mps, would that be an engineering limit?

I have to say that the more I look at the proposals, the more unfeasible it look, but still, good to dream and all that.

Maximus Alexander · 24-07-2014 11:36am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No you can't.

The humans will be 100Km up but only have 1,000mph orbital velocity out of the 18,000mph they need to avoid going splat sometime after they step off the elevator

From what I've read it would cost about half to accelerate to orbital velocity at the altitude of LEO compared to launching from the surface. That's a pretty significant saving.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-07-2014 9:57pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

From what I've read it would cost about half to accelerate to orbital velocity at the altitude of LEO compared to launching from the surface. That's a pretty significant saving.

There's a huge difference between being 100Km up and being 100Km up and travelling at 17,000 mph

if you increase your speed up an elevator the downward force also increases so there is a limit on how much cargo and what speed it can travel compared to the strength of the cable and the size of counterweight

elevators are great for slow cargo , not so good for perishables like humans.

Sending cargo by ship is cheap
But long distance aeroplane travel is cheaper for humans since you only have to supply life support for a seat for few hours instead of a full cabin for days.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-07-2014 10:40pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

From what I've read it would cost about half to accelerate to orbital velocity at the altitude of LEO compared to launching from the surface. That's a pretty significant saving.

Use a chemical rocket to get to LEO and then use Hall Effect Thruster the rest of the way will save you something approaching half your launch mass.

The only problem is that you are relying on solar panels so very slow acceleration. However, 40 years of use in space and there haven't been any failures yet so it's a very dependable technology.

VASIMR is something similar except it only exists in theory and the claims for it don't add up.

What are the maximum g's a human breathing perfluorocarbons could stand ? maybe 50g's ??

50g's for 14 seconds would get you into orbit, you could hold your breath so wouldn't have to breath liquid during that time

the distance at that acceleration would be 1,684Km ( 1,000 miles )

that's a lot shorter than an elevator and one hell of a maglev ride through a vacuum tube

of course most non-mammalian species develop from eggs so they could launch them at even higher g's

ET might laugh at our ways of getting our fragile bodies into space

Maximus Alexander · 26-07-2014 11:24pm

None of that addresses the point I was making...

Capt'n Midnight · 28-07-2014 12:55am

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

None of that addresses the point I was making...

you're saying that accelerating to 17,000mph only takes half the energy when you are 100Km up ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

On November 18, 1966 the Yuma gun fired a 180 kg Martlet 2 projectile at 3,600 m/s (12,000 ft/s) sending it into space briefly and setting an altitude record of 180 km (590,000 ft; 110 mi); that world record still stands as of 2013

3.6Kms is only 1/3rd of orbital velocity

also the first 1/4 or 1/3 or whatever of velocity is the easiest to get, solid rocket boosters are cheap , yes there are savings but it's big dumb booster territory

even the first stage of the Saturn IV ran on kerosene/diesel rather than the lighter and more energetic hydrogen.

and a space elevator that got you to 100km would still need to extend far beyond GEO to counter balance the weight

Rucking_Fetard · 05-09-2014 12:57am

What will it take to get us back to the Moon?

Hotblack Desiato · 05-09-2014 1:55am

What will it take to get us back to the moon?

Money, lots thereof, just like last time - but also a reason to go there, which was tenuous enough the last time.

39 years ago you could have bought a ticket on a Mach 2 scheduled airliner flight. These days you're lucky to do M0.8 in a cramped seat, but at least it's usually cheap...

Concorde failed partially because the development costs were through the roof (partially recouped by Airbus recyling the technology though) but mainly because of the huge energy input compared to subsonic airliners. Similarly, short of a space elevator we're not going to get over the energy needed to overcome Earth's gravity well to LEO, never mind lunar injection.

I wish I could be optimistic about the future of manned space flight, I grew up devouring books about Gemini, Apollo and Soyuz after all, but that was an unrealistic era brought about by disguised military expansionism, and cold war one-upmanship.

Calina · 05-09-2014 9:06am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Concorde failed partially because the development costs were through the roof (partially recouped by Airbus recyling the technology though) but mainly because of the huge energy input compared to subsonic airliners.

It wasn't helped by protectionist policies in America either.

nokia69 · 05-09-2014 4:56pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What will it take to get us back to the moon?

Money, lots thereof, just like last time - but also a reason to go there, which was tenuous enough the last time.

39 years ago you could have bought a ticket on a Mach 2 scheduled airliner flight. These days you're lucky to do M0.8 in a cramped seat, but at least it's usually cheap...

Concorde failed partially because the development costs were through the roof (partially recouped by Airbus recyling the technology though) but mainly because of the huge energy input compared to subsonic airliners. Similarly, short of a space elevator we're not going to get over the energy needed to overcome Earth's gravity well to LEO, never mind lunar injection.

I wish I could be optimistic about the future of manned space flight, I grew up devouring books about Gemini, Apollo and Soyuz after all, but that was an unrealistic era brought about by disguised military expansionism, and cold war one-upmanship.

take a look at what spaceX are doing and you will be optimistic again

once the BFR is flying a return to the Moon will be easy

Hotblack Desiato · 05-09-2014 10:13pm

Do you really think we'll see humans on the moon again within, say, 20 years? I don't

nokia69 · 05-09-2014 10:38pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do you really think we'll see humans on the moon again within, say, 20 years? I don't

of course, I think we will see it happen in less than 10

spaceX have started work on their Mars rocket, this will make the saturn V look small, with a rocket that size getting people to the Moon is easy

Musk has little or no interest in the Moon but if NASA or anyone else want to pay him to get there he will be happy to take the money

Manach · 05-09-2014 10:56pm

From history there are cases of a society turning its back on the cusp of a golden age of exploration. China had vast fleets in the Medieval period that mapped as far as the furtherest shores of Africa. Then, they stopped and turned inwards - in the belief that as the Middle Kingdom they could keep their levels of prosperity by ignoring the rest of the world. So from this, yes the moon will be reached again but by societies that have drive - ironically enough that would include to-day's China.

Hotblack Desiato · 06-09-2014 1:12am

nokia69 wrote: »

Musk has little or no interest in the Moon but if NASA or anyone else want to pay him to get there he will be happy to take the money

Well, that's your fail all wrapped up in one neat sentence.

Hotblack Desiato · 06-09-2014 1:13am

Calina wrote: »

It wasn't helped by protectionist policies in America either.

That was only after the Americans were sure they couldn't build their own SST, there were no so-called 'environmental groups' objecting to the Boeing 2707.

nokia69 · 06-09-2014 1:19am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well, that's your fail all wrapped up in one neat sentence.

watch it happen

they already get paid to send supplies to the ISS, when the SLS gets cancelled NASA will just use the BFR because it will be a better rocket for a fraction of the price

Rucking_Fetard · 06-09-2014 2:03am

nokia69 wrote: »

watch it happen

they already get paid to send supplies to the ISS, when the SLS gets cancelled NASA will just use the BFR because it will be a better rocket for a fraction of the price

NASA’s Space Launch System is officially all systems go for Mars and Moon landings

nokia69 · 06-09-2014 2:30am

yeah the SLS may fly a few times, but its going to be cancelled

its launch costs will be to high

Capt'n Midnight · 08-09-2014 10:21pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That was only after the Americans were sure they couldn't build their own SST, there were no so-called 'environmental groups' objecting to the Boeing 2707.

Mach 2 wasn't good enough , they wanted Mach 3 and that's a lot more expensive. Sonic booms from the XB-70 didn't help.

But the big kicker was a simple Schoolboy error. If the plane can go Mach 3 you only need 1/3rd as many. This means development costs can't be spread out and that's why the B2 bomber and Space Shuttles cost billions each.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

39 years ago you could have bought a ticket on a Mach 2 scheduled airliner flight. These days you're lucky to do M0.8 in a cramped seat, but at least it's usually cheap..

Actually if you add in the queues and circling the airport it's more likely to be Mach 0.4-0.5 unless you are on long haul.

45 Years Ago We Landed Men on the Moon

Comments