(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(Christian Ramos) wrote:
my understanding is that for the USA to undertake a lunar landing now
would require development from scratch of many technologies.

Your understanding is 110% incorrect. Like many folks you confuse
'not having hardware' with 'not having technology'. (It;s forgivable
though, as many people far smarter than you are also so confused
because of the *******ization of the term over the last decade or so.)


I think I understand where your going, however, if the company has
lost the ability to reproduce that technology without starting a
research project, is the result not the same thing. For example, the
company I work for used to have a aerospace division and contributed
significantly to the space program including the apollo. Yet years
later when we saw a market for a piece of the technology (in the area
of power), the company had to start from scratch to redevelop it and
it came up very differently . The technology is totally different in
the new end product. Some aspects of the original technology could not
be reproduced and alternate methods had to be developed. Perhaps this
company is a exception to the rule. By the time we had redeveloped it,
a european company was already on the market.

I would be interested if you could define the difference for me, as I
think I see where you are going but am having trouble matching that to
day-to-day.

A product where materials are critical. The person who knew how to
treat the metal is no longer available and no records of value are
available. Does this represent a loss of technology or a loss of
hardware.

I find this interesting, as I have never seperated the two, perhaps an
example of technology loss versus product loss would be helpful.

Is it your contention, that the apollo spacesuit could still be
produced in the US without having to redevelop it from scratch?

No, that's not my contention. You confuse adapting known techniques
and systems to modern (I.E. 40 years after Apollo) practices and
materials with development from scratch.

Argh, but that is the crux of my argument, the techniques and systems
are NOT known, either lost in corporate reshuffles or when the person
themselves died/left.

You could argue this is just a sympton of the ongoing decline in the
USA's scientific and technology, but it's more likely driven by the
hectic pace at the time of apollo launches and the termination of the
program.

I'd argue neither point, because both are utter and laughable
nonsense.

Arm..Probably not relevant to the discussion, I would like to stick to
your main point above, as its interesting.

I will say however, the documentation and engineering records for that
era are a total sham in my experience, at our company in some cases
just some simple hand sketches are all that remain, in some cases not
even that just some data on preliminary benchtops,or worse
documentation that doesnt actually relate to the final product. I know
this is also the case in the company we sold our aerospace division
to.

As for the Science and Technology decline, this is something those of
us who have to develop products fight with everyday and are loosing,
increasingly we are moving research and development offshore. Our
graduate program in the US is in tatters with regards to scitech.

These last two points are drawn from personnel experience, and I'm not
attempting to convince you either way, it simply is a fact of life "I"
have to deal with. If you choose to call it utter and laughable
nonsense, I can accept that, because I wish it was true.

So lets agree to disagree on the last two points and discuss
Technology Loss versus Hardware Loss.
D.