Why can´t NASA just bust out the old, dusty blueprints for the Saturn V and just rebuild a tried, tested and debugged rocket? Nooooo, they gotta build a brand new tinker toy called Ares thats plagued with "engineering problems" instead.

WTF is up with these people calling the shots? Just rebuild Apollo and update the computers and subsystems. It worked dammit! Yeah, I know the counter argument, there isn´t anybody around to make all those "old" parts anymore. Well, I would say that our manufacturing capabilities are quite capable of slapping any part together, more so now, than ever before. Faster, computer controlled, laser cut, you name it, it can be done.



[edit on 2-7-2009 by fockewulf190]

It seems NASA's mantra is, the more complicated it is, the better it is! Why can't they use a shuttle to send up the lander and park it on the space station. Then send up another shuttle with the orbiter, connect them in space pretty much the way they did back in the late sixties and then point the whole thing at the moon and fire up the engines?
Instead of going there in one journey the astronauts would stop off at the space station for a while.

well, there are things to consider. the saturn maybe very expensive to build in todays world


.... back then it was what we had, but by todays standard we can probably, and i am willing to bet this is true,,,
more efficent stuff... in todays world, building a giant saturn rocket and doing the same systems, may be
budget blowing work, millions billions, who knows,



even though I like the idea very much. i like your idea very very much,.

i think its a great idea. why re-invent the wheel, if you have a method that works well? you dont need to . you use what works and build new stuff where needed. plus , yuo can refine the small tiny kinks in the system

and therefore have an even better saturn 5 rocket. great idea. but , budgets like i said will kill it.

still, designing the thing as a brand new type rocket (new one) will cost a lot, and the re-tooling to make all teh components, will , in effect, i believe probably end up costing millions more, and who knows, probably lots of details and problems and dozens fo new kinks and glitches again, and then make a secind and third and fouth versions to get the kinks out, and then befor eyou know it, teh budget is way higher than it woudl have been.

politics, my friend, not engineering, is often, sadly, what runs these things. and also politic driven schedule and deadlines. having said that, ,,,again, i think the best idea is to use a saturn 5 rocket rebuilt , its an idea i absolutely think is smart, rugged, reliable, cost efficent, and um, can get us into a space faring civilization the fastest and most safe efficent way.

i just had to say that.

moon stuff. well i heard that the alien unknown presence so scared us, basically warned us off the moon um, its real scary to be up there in the dark, cold moon, if you know that aliens are around there and can simply kill you on sight , in a millisecond if they dont like what the see. being that their technology is so vastly faster and more advanced than ours.

still, our moon, is , i believe, THE KEY , to us being a space-faring civilization I say, get all the hardware, guns, everything, and go for it now. land and build a base. super strong, and man it 24/7
send resupply men, and gear and food, and set up shop.





keep re-supplying and rest, R and R the guys that were there serving, and keep teh system going. staff it and get it larger and larger
then send tourists , paying money, and us ethe money for improvements. soon enough we will have landing pads, massive ships, and bingo!
a space faring CIVILIZATION. WE BECOME

life is what you make of it. I say lets do it. it wil be so much fun ! I volunteer. bring guns to blast aliens if necessary



--history is not made by wimps .

Originally posted by fockewulf190
Why can´t NASA just bust out the old, dusty blueprints for the Saturn V and just rebuild a tried, tested and debugged rocket? Nooooo, they gotta build a brand new tinker toy called Ares thats plagued with "engineering problems" instead.

NASA didn't build the Saturn V, contractors did. Many of those contractors have undergone mergers, takeovers, or just plain gone out of business in the last 40 years. On top of that, we want the ability to sustain our moon presence with cheaper, partly reuseable launchers and capsules and at the same time have more options for where we land on the moon as well as being able to stay on the moon longer.

Yeah, I know the counter argument, there isn´t anybody around to make all those "old" parts anymore. Well, I would say that our manufacturing capabilities are quite capable of slapping any part together, more so now, than ever before. Faster, computer controlled, laser cut, you name it, it can be done.

Re-engineering an old design to fit today's tech is harder than just buying a new design. I watched first hand as my university tried to update their 50 year old giant telescope with new computer equipment and tracking gear; it just didn't work. It wasn't designed to work with the new tech and it was just cheaper and easier to buy a new more capable scope than try to butcher the old one into working.

Originally posted by fockewulf190
Why can´t NASA just bust out the old, dusty blueprints for the Saturn V and just rebuild a tried, tested and debugged rocket? Nooooo, they gotta build a brand new tinker toy called Ares thats plagued with "engineering problems" instead.

WTF is up with these people calling the shots? Just rebuild Apollo and update the computers and subsystems. It worked dammit! Yeah, I know the counter argument, there isn´t anybody around to make all those "old" parts anymore. Well, I would say that our manufacturing capabilities are quite capable of slapping any part together, more so now, than ever before. Faster, computer controlled, laser cut, you name it, it can be done.



[edit on 2-7-2009 by fockewulf190]

Why don' people all drive around in model t's since they would be much cheaper to make and it was a proven model that people drove around in?

Why don't we all just use 386's for our home pc's? They worked well at the time and man would they be cheap to make these days?

The anwser to these 2 questions is the same reason they are trying to move forward with technology on the shuttles.

Can't NASA just work with the Russians using Soyuz rockets and save up the funds for the actual projects or at least use secret technology to bring up supplies into space instead of claiming rubbish.

I mean seriously, we went from bicycle gear prop planes to space rockets in what... 50-60 years and nothing happened since for 50 years since then?

Please.

NASA is lying, not only about what they've seen, but about what they have.

They just want money, and a lot of it, benefits that will never trickle down to the common people, who just happens to completely fund them.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by star in a jar]

i personally know three unemployed rocket scientists who would die for a chance to bid on this. maybe this is the perfect time for some new companies to get a chance to compete?

you know, part of me loves the space program...the idealism or it, the exploration, the jobs it creates, and the new technology it breeds.

another part worries about spending even more money we don't have.

but overall? i'd rather spend the money on this and create jobs here at home than waste it on yet another senseless war or sticking it into the pockets of the failed neo-socialist corporations.

then again, the work would probably go to the favored bidders as usual and they'd offshore it to china or something. makes me MAD.

overall, doesn't this seem kinda strange when you consider that we just launched a rocket (was it) last week to go blow up part of the moon.

if money (or aliens "warning us off" as someone mentioned) was such a big concern, why didn't they ax that project?

seems the moon's been in the news a lot lately, doesn't it?

and because i can, i'm going to say that the moon hasn't "looked right" to me for over a year now. something i can't put my finger on...

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
...overall, doesn't this seem kinda strange when you consider that we just launched a rocket (was it) last week to go blow up part of the moon.

NASA is not simply "blowing up part of it". They are going to impact a part of the Moon that is thought to have water (perhaps from a comet that impacted there in the past) and then look at the debris thrown up from the impact to see if water exists. Finding water on the Moon is very meaningful for NASA's long-term plans for the Moon, which may include manned outposts on the surface of the Moon. Water is very heavy, and if NASA would rather use water that already exists there. Earlier data suggests the water is there.

Also, water can be used to create rocket fuel oxidizers -- these fuels could perhaps be used someday to power a mission to Mars launched from the Moon.

seems the moon's been in the news a lot lately, doesn't it?

Yes -- that's because the Constellation Program (the next manned missions to the Moon) is ramping up. You're going to hear a lot about the Moon and the future manned moon mission over the next several years.

NASA hopes to land men on the Moon again in as little as 8 years. The LRO orbiter and the LCROSS moon-impact mission are part of that program. LRO is taking detailed high-resolution photos of the Moon to find interesting landing sites, and the LCROSS is looking for water (among other things).

and because i can, i'm going to say that the moon hasn't "looked right" to me for over a year now. something i can't put my finger on...

People such as ATS member "ngchunter" who study the Moon rather closely would almost certainly tell you differently -- however, I'll let him tell you (if he's reading this) rather than me speaking for him.

[edit on 7/3/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
and because i can, i'm going to say that the moon hasn't "looked right" to me for over a year now. something i can't put my finger on...

I haven't noticed any unusual changes in the moon in the last year, perhaps you're just seeing it at slightly different librations during the same phase (caused by it being in different spots in its orbit at the same phase over the course of the year)? Here's a side by side of the moon at nearly identical phases but different months in the same year (taken almost exactly a year ago, as a matter of fact). They look similar, but some craters at the edge of the poles (here seen at the left and right) can only be seen in one picture or the other. In other words, our view of the moon changes month to month even during the same point in the moon's cycle.

This effect is more exaggerated the more months that separate the images, but I intentionally only allowed for 1 month's separation so that I could use the images to create the above stereogram.

If you figure out what it is about the moon that is bugging you though, it would be helpful in explaining whatever it is. What may be routine to me may seem unusual to you.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by ngchunter]