We, first loosers for 100 years.

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)

Best,
Vello

"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.

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

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.

wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

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.

Based on a loose definition of reality too... as we never had that
ability. Each landing was the culmination of months and years of
planning and training.

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

Derek Lyons wrote:
wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

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.

Based on a loose definition of reality too... as we never had that
ability. Each landing was the culmination of months and years of
planning and training.

True.
But any given mission could have been repurposed at a fairly short
leadtime, if a big glowing "land here for membership of the
Galctic Bowling League" sign appeared on the moon.

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.

"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.

"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.

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?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"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.

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

Well, but we are in progress. Knowledge how to make concrete instead of
bricks-stones was lost surely some period later then last Roman concrete
building was erected:-) Today we have yet capabilities, but we lack will.
Situation well comparable with last centuries of Pax Romana when people turn
more on "dolce vita". 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, we can't go to Moon or
in the deepest point of sea. Well, we think we could do all that if we will.
But, probably, there is something wrong just with our "will". We don't will
to go further any more?