We, loosers??

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 in message
...
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

I imagine you'll get a similar response from many people here, but I don't
think this is a matter of mankind losing or falling back in terms of
technology, so much as there not being the political will (or necessity) to
demonstrate what the technology can do.

Regards
--
Dave Kenworthy
-----------------------------
Changes aren't permanent - but change is!

"Vello" wrote in message
...
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)?

Yes and no. We are not "dropping back" in technology. Technology is *much*
better and more capable today than in the '60's. See my sig (below) as well
as the Moon2Mars web site for details of what we can do today, if we wanted
to, compared to 30 years ago.

Remember, it took over eight years for Apollo to reach the Moon (from JFK's
speech in 1961 to Armstrong's "One Small Step" in 1969). Today, it *can* be
done in less than fire years with greater potential for expanding the
program.

Just as Dave Kentworthy pointed out, we don't have the political need to
prove that technology - in the 1960's, Capitalism vs Communism was the
driving force behind the Apollo program and that type of competition just
doesn't exist any more. If we want, we can return to the Moon, with a
permanent Human presence before the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, but it
would be a close-run thing.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

Just one s

MORAGAWEBCAM


I BEEN IN THE US GROUPS FOR 20 MONTHS AND 200 POST
AND NOW IM HERE IN THE AUS GROUPS FOR 20 MONTHS.


st. mary's college webcam http://149.137.107.8./home/homeJ.htm

id: Guest pass: Guest

"Vello" wrote in message ...
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)?


Not such a strange idea. Technology is of no good when civilization disintegrates.
--
Gene Seibel
Space Ship One - http://pad39a.com/gene/ss1.html
Because I fly, I envy no one - except Mike Melvill.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:25:03 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:

Remember, it took over eight years for Apollo to reach the Moon (from JFK's
speech in 1961 to Armstrong's "One Small Step" in 1969). Today, it *can* be
done in less than fire years with greater potential for expanding the
program.

I thought that NASA estimated that we could go back in 6 or 7 years.
Nevertheless, look at were we were at that time in 1961 compared to
now. We had a long way to go then. We had done one manned sub
orbital flight.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

"Jud McCranie" wrote in message
...

I thought that NASA estimated that we could go back in 6 or 7 years.
Nevertheless, look at were we were at that time in 1961 compared to
now. We had a long way to go then. We had done one manned sub
orbital flight.

Most of the infrastructure already exists - using the Delta IV as the basis
for a launch vehicle (would need a payload of about 50 tonnes to LEO - check
Boeing's site for details of their plans to increase the payload capacity of
the Delta IV). The only real requirements are for a return vehicle
(capsule), somewhere to live and work (accommodation and experiment
modules - based on Spacelab-sized sections each with a mass of no more than
seven tonnes on the Lunar surface), and a lander. All the engines and most
of the systems already exist (most are already in production with several
currently undergoing final development). The only thing that is really
needed is the structures and that's _fairly_ straight forward.

Have a look at how long it took Boeing to develop the Delta IV 'family' as
an example of how fast things can be done - and they developed the engine at
the same time.

First four years would be needed for development and integration of systems
as well as a (Russian or European?) recon mission to the Moon for site
selection; fifth year would be flight tests and first landings for an
outpost facility - Accommodation Module, Experiment Module, Power Module
(fuel cells for the lunar night - shuttle cells work for up to 16 days with
few problems and solar [pv or thermal] for day use as well as electrolysis
of water from the fuel cells for complete recycling). The rest of the
outpost would follow.

Seven missions with the Delta IV Heavy (Heavy) - I call it the Delta V would
be needed with a fifty tonne LEO payload giving about 6.8-7.2 tonnes Lunar
surface payload - first for the Accommodation Module, second for the
Experiment Module, third for the Power Module, fourth for a Logistics
Module, fifth for return propellant (one of the first concepts for a Moon
mission in the late '50's/early '60's was called LSR - Lunar Surface
Rendezvous - send an automated payload to the Moon with return propellant
followed by the 'manned' mission - concept was not used then, but it would
work if there was accommodation already on the Moon - sort of like a
simplified ISS but on the surface) and the sixth would be for the crew.

No return propellant would be taken by the crew - it would be on the surface
waiting for them - I feel that to be inherently *much* safer than the method
used by Apollo.

Five years is plenty.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

"Dave Kenworthy" wrote in message
...

"Vello" wrote in message
...
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

I imagine you'll get a similar response from many people here, but I don't
think this is a matter of mankind losing or falling back in terms of
technology, so much as there not being the political will (or necessity)
to
demonstrate what the technology can do.

Regards
--
Dave Kenworthy
-----------------------------
Changes aren't permanent - but change is!

For sure there is just lack of will, but that is just my question: is it
first time after Roman collapse we lack will to go further? If yes, can our
civilization will probably meet the fate of Roman Empire in foreseeable
future?

"Vello" wrote in message
...


For sure there is just lack of will, but that is just my question: is it
first time after Roman collapse we lack will to go further? If yes, can
our
civilization will probably meet the fate of Roman Empire in foreseeable
future?


Vello, firstly apologies for not being more welcoming - thanks to your post
I now know that .ee is Estonia!

I don't think that the situations are comparable. The collapse or retreat of
a power (empire, nation or whatever) isn't the same as that power moving
away from a given demonstration of a specific technology. For example,
supersonic transatlantic passenger flight didn't end because of the demise
of the european aerospace industry, or of anglo-french co-operation in that
field, and it certainly didn't lead to either of those either. Rather, the
demand seems not to have been there (I defer to those in this group who can
explain the factors better than I).

Apollo (which I assume you're talking about) was neither a technological or
geopolitical high water mark for the USA. The USA is now a more powerful
force in the world than it was then. If, 30 years ago, the USA had found
its political, spiritual or social structure fatally undermined, then the
parallel with the Romans would have been more realistic.

The impressive technology we can still see from the Roman era is the
relatively mundane aspects, like civil engineering, etc (I expect somebody
to interject in a python-like manner at this point!). This stuff was the
fabric of their empire, critical to its functioning, not their 'party
piece'.

By the way, I do appreciate the comparison with the Romans - I grew up in a
city teeming with Roman technology, and LEG. XX graffitti all over the
place!

--
Dave Kenworthy
-----------------------------
Changes aren't permanent - but change is!

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:57:20 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:

The only real requirements are for a return vehicle
(capsule), somewhere to live and work (accommodation and experiment
modules - based on Spacelab-sized sections each with a mass of no more than
seven tonnes on the Lunar surface), and a lander.

I assume that you think it would be better to develop new spacecraft
for that rather than build some new Apollo gear.

I think that in May 1961 the Saturn I was already in development and I
think that the Saturn V was in the planning stages, but even so from
that point to landing in only 8 years and 4 months seems remarkable.
But I think they had the saying "waste anything but time".


mission in the late '50's/early '60's was called LSR - Lunar Surface
Rendezvous - send an automated payload to the Moon with return propellant
followed by the 'manned' mission - concept was not used then, but it would
work if there was accommodation already on the Moon

Well, you would have to be sure that you could land close enough to
it. Something could go wrong.

No return propellant would be taken by the crew - it would be on the surface
waiting for them - I feel that to be inherently *much* safer than the method
used by Apollo.

I don't know. What if they couldn't land where it was?

---
Replace you know what by j to email