A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

We, first loosers for 100 years.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 9th 04, 08:47 PM
Bent C Dalager
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:

Strange as it may sound.. When you exclude edge cases and highly
specialized craft... (I.E. the Clippers) you find my assertion
correct.


Wouldn't it be reasonable in this case to compare the best of 1770
with the best of 1870?

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

  #13  
Old September 10th 04, 12:08 AM
Christian Ramos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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.


  #14  
Old September 10th 04, 12:43 PM
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Vello" wrote:

And just by facts - at least for last centuries any generation had have

in use
technologies superior to what last generation had. Today we can't

travel
faster then 40 years ago,

And somebody in 1770 couldn't ride a horse any faster than the Greeks
20 centuries before. in 1870 we couldn't sail any faster than the
Armada 400 years before...


Strange as it may sound, both of those assertions are
incorrect. Not all horses, nor all sailing vessels,
are the same. Compare, for example, the speed of a
Spanish Galleon (~8 kts) vs. the speed of a Yankee
Clipper built centuries later (~18 kts).


Strange as it may sound.. When you exclude edge cases and highly
specialized craft... (I.E. the Clippers) you find my assertion
correct.


True, but your original claim didn't exclude edge cases. In 1870 we could,
jut not many did.

And as for horses, actually I believe the size, speed and stamina of horses
from the BC era to the 1800s did change remarkably.

I'd have to research that one though before hanging my hat on it.



D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.


  #15  
Old September 10th 04, 01:19 PM
Bent C Dalager
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

And as for horses, actually I believe the size, speed and stamina of horses
from the BC era to the 1800s did change remarkably.


There will also have been some development in the harness used,
stirrups possibly being the most important innovation. I'm not sure
when the horse shoe was introduced in western culture, the greeks may
have had it for all I know.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

  #16  
Old September 29th 04, 06:48 PM
Christopher M. Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
And somebody in 1770 couldn't ride a horse any faster than the Greeks
20 centuries before. in 1870 we couldn't sail any faster than the
Armada 400 years before...


Strange as it may sound, both of those assertions are
incorrect. Not all horses, nor all sailing vessels,
are the same. Compare, for example, the speed of a
Spanish Galleon (~8 kts) vs. the speed of a Yankee
Clipper built centuries later (~18 kts).


Strange as it may sound.. When you exclude edge cases and highly
specialized craft... (I.E. the Clippers) you find my assertion
correct.


No, it's even less correct. Compare the best to best or
just average to average. In 1870 vs. 1770. On the sea,
over land, etc. Using average transporation systems
available at the times you'd generally get to where you
were going faster in 1870 than you would in 1770.

  #17  
Old December 1st 04, 01:19 PM
Keigwin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Derek Lyons wrote:
"Vello" wrote:
Just one strange idea: mankind don't have now space capabilities

comparable
what we had 30 years ago. It seems it is first time mankind is "dropping
back" in technology - or is there some other examples in history (well

there
was a time after collapse of Roman Empire when a lot of technologies

were
lost, but my post is about last 200-400 years)


Nice thesis, but it founders on the rocks of reality. There isn't a
capability that we had thirty years ago that we know don't have.



Based on a loose definition of 30 years, the ability to launch a mission
to the moon on a few months leadtime.


We are no worse off for not being dedicated to pointless endeavours like
re-visiting the "ash-pit in the sky". Good science can be done there by
robotic means and nowadays we are absorbed with more interesting targets for
research and investigation. America may be suffering setbacks in it's space
program but the French "Ariane" is a superb and successful piece of
engineering and the Russian & Chinese launchers are also apparently reliable
enough to be commercially viable.
The British developed an excellent launcher, "Blue Streak", which was
capable of launching 100 - kilo packages, but they stepped away from
launcher development to concentrate on satellite-construction. That wasn't a
step backwards but sideways to a scale of production which better suited
their national capabilities at the time. Space programs should serve people
not the other way round.
Are you sure you aren't hankering after an opportunity to revisit not the
Moon, but "past glories"? With nations like India and Japan capable of
launching their own satellites you'll have to look for that elsewhere.

Keigwin.

  #18  
Old May 18th 05, 05:47 PM
Lou Adornato
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keigwin" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Derek Lyons wrote:
"Vello" wrote:
Just one strange idea: mankind don't have now space capabilities

comparable
what we had 30 years ago. It seems it is first time mankind is
"dropping
back" in technology - or is there some other examples in history (well

there
was a time after collapse of Roman Empire when a lot of technologies

were
lost, but my post is about last 200-400 years)

Nice thesis, but it founders on the rocks of reality. There isn't a
capability that we had thirty years ago that we know don't have.



Excuse me, but you're wrong.

What about heavy-lift capability? The Saturn V had a lot more throw weight
than the Shuttle, and today the Shuttle is the only vehicle that can
complete the ISS.

How about the ability to design crewed spacecraft? Both the Russians and
Americans had several man-centuries of hands-on experience in spacecraft
design, and that's been lost. The only people not on retirement who've
designed a functional crewed spacecraft (as opposed to segments of a space
station) work for Scaled Composites.

If we haven't lost any capabilities, why is NASA talking about letting
Hubble die?

Space
programs should serve people
not the other way round.


Minor quibble, but the programs should serve thier investors. It's about
time that "investors" and "the people" stopped being the same thing.
However, when space programs are forced to expand the frontiers of
engineering and technology, "people" receive an awful lot of benefits in the
form of technology fallout.

Are you sure you aren't hankering after an opportunity to revisit not the
Moon, but "past glories"? With nations like India and Japan capable of
launching their own satellites you'll have to look for that elsewhere.


I don't see anything wrong with proving to ourselves that we can still rise
to a challenge. Those footprints in the dust motivated an entire generation
of American engineers and scientists, and given that fact, they were
probably a terrific investment.

However, I also don't see it happening; it's a little difficult to acheive
new successes when you've systematically destroyed everything that made the
past glories possible. We (Americans) destroyed the design documents for
the Saturn V, allowed the technical skill base to go to seed, and forced the
next generation to waste itself doing maintenance on that POS Shuttle
instead of exploring new technologies.

  #19  
Old May 19th 05, 04:08 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lou Adornato" wrote in
:

We (Americans) destroyed the
design documents for the Saturn V,


Aw, geez, not this $#!+ again...

The Saturn V design documents were not destroyed. They are stored on
microfiche in the MSFC archives. The original *vellum* drawings may no
longer exist, but big whup.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

  #20  
Old May 21st 05, 02:33 AM
Ed Zeppelin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lou Adornato wrote:


If we haven't lost any capabilities, why is NASA talking about letting
Hubble die?


Here's something to think about to shine some light on why
we don't keep saving spacecraft over and over,
theoretically, by replacing parts, a car can run forever.
How come no one ever does that but rather just buys a new
car?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Let me say THIS about THAT Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 1 August 13th 04 01:54 AM
knowledge is power mostafa dia Satellites 3 August 11th 04 07:17 AM
knowledge is power mostafa dia Amateur Astronomy 5 August 8th 04 12:22 AM
knowledge is power mostafa dia FITS 0 August 7th 04 02:37 AM
Incontrovertible Evidence Cash Astronomy Misc 1 August 24th 03 07:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.