Moon Landing: Fake or Real?

[Thumpalumpacus]

There we have it. So it's fair to say, by that reasoning...that even when we don't currently possess a machine or the designs for a machine, we can still claim to be capable?

Are you saying that the designs of, say, the Saturn V, or the LEM, have been lost altogether? If so, according to whom?

I personally think you're overstating the technical difficulties. Even if we had to start with a blank sheet, we already know the principles, we already know the issues we'll be facing, and we have computer design and simulation which would serve to ease the process, none of which was available to the Redstone / Mercury / Gemini / Apollo series of programs.

[The Grand Nudger]

According to NASA, yes. 50 years of recordkeeping (this was before digital, some later during transition) and 50 years of career attrition (and plain old death) have removed the knowledge and most of the folks we might simply ask for help. Our "principles" were the bits of relevant information lost. The data from apollo and gemeni literally -was- the list of design principles for such a vehicle. Mission notes where the lists of issues we'd be facing. It would be as if we lost our notes on germ theory, and the ability to produce the equipment to replicate our discoveries..had two microscopes left on earth -but continued to claim that we were capable of producing reliant medicines....is there really a way to overstate such a fuckup?

(As a side note, the notion that a manned mars mission, or any manned mission, is held up by cost is entirely baseless. A mission was proposed waaay back in the day using -then- existing technologies at a fraction of the usual mission cost for permanent habitation of Mars. I suppose though, it's easier to talk about how expensive it would be..even if it wouldn't...then to admit to such a colossal mess. Hell, we could do it today.......if only we had some of that -then- existing technology at hand.....)

These vehicles are modern day antikythera devices. We have one, it exists, in fact we have many fragments of one. We know that people once made them, we have fragmentary ideas of how they were made, but we are at a loss to explain -in detail- how they were produced in the first place (or their exact manner of use). The analogy breaks down when we consider the simplicity of the antikythera device. We can make better instruments now (if it is what we think it is) - but with launch vehicles, we simply haven't been able to do so. Everything is held up in design phase while we tease out the info remaining on our successful programs.

[Cato]

Orion is the command mod. The SLS is the launch. It's "still being designed".

What is "still being designed" supposed to mean? Historic platforms were also at one time "still being designed". I don't understand your point.

As far as the design, the SLS is undergoing component and scale level testing; a necessary part of development. The current plan is to launch Orion with the SLS in 2017. There certainly could be delays, but you are making it sound like the endeavor is impossible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh no, not impossible at all. The SLS being planned for launch is only a working model btw. It's a modular system and the bits required for launch to mars(just as an example) are "still being designed". Granted 2017 gives them some time.

We are essentially looking at starting up a manned program from scratch because of lost files. That's what I'm saying. It's not immanent, we have no capability. Obviously the apollo and gemeni guys did it from scratch. Ostensibly we will do the same, but before they had accomplished it they had no capability either.

Bottom line, we are less proficient now than we were then. For them, then, it truly was an issue of cost and scheduling. For us, it's an issue of ignorance.

[Napoléon]

(As a side note, the notion that a manned mars mission, or any manned mission, is held up by cost is entirely baseless.)

I'm sorry, but you're talking out of your ass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_mission_to_Mars

The cost of sending people to Mars has been the main obstacle of any mission. Estimates of cost have ranged from $6 billion to $500 billion for various crewed programs.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Oh no, not impossible at all. The SLS being planned for launch is only a working model btw. It's a modular system and the bits required for launch to mars(just as an example) are "still being designed". Granted 2017 gives them some time.

We are essentially looking at starting up a manned program from scratch because of lost files. That's what I'm saying. It's not immanent, we have no capability. Obviously the apollo and gemeni guys did it from scratch. Ostensibly we will do the same, but before they had accomplished it they had no capability either.

Bottom line, we are less proficient now than we were then. For them, then, it truly was an issue of cost and scheduling. For us, it's an issue of ignorance.

We already had a boosterless shuttle prototype before the military ate the project in 2001.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

Another prototype eaten by the military:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I'm not Nap, in your own link, check the stub for "The Case for Mars/Mars Direct". Thats a very notable example. When you see numbers like 6 billion, please keep in mind that it is relative. 6 billion for a project like that is a bargain. They have the money, they spend the money anyway...you see.... Estimates for NASA are 30 bil, two years budget or so (for a twenty year project). 10%......10%......hangs head....if only we had the rockets..lol. More numbers for those who don't want to clicky da link. That nasa budget, which can (and has) easily accommodated such projects before accounts for less than 1% of federal discretionary spending..mind you, I;m talking about just the US doing this solo........

Theres plenty of money, money coming out the demon-hole.



http://www.marssociety.org/home/about/faq

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

[Ravenshire]

Now for the shitty part. While we -did- get our business together and go to the moon back in the day...we are currently incapable of repeating the trip....

I think we're plenty capable. It's just that no-one can see the need to bother, which is even more shitty. The Moon would be a far better platform for launching missions (manned or robotic) to the inner or outer solar system. It would also be a great place to manufacture solar panels to collect solar energy and beam it back to earth, releasing us from the need for fossil fuels.

Going back to the moon is the first step to reaching out to the rest of the solar system and beyond. Let's kill the tax exemptions on the churches and give a bunch of that money to NASA so we can get started! *pipe dream*

[The Grand Nudger]

NASA already has the money, ten times over, the US has the money, 1000 times over - those plans being reliant on technological abilities we no longer (but once did) possess. I get it though, from a planner/lobbyists perspective. Why maintain the jalopy for a drive to the store when you can just stall and ask for endless funds to build a fancy new floating car that accomplishes the same thing? By god, I'll take two!