Posted on 11/29/2018 10:47:26 PM PST by BenLurkin
The general idea is that these companies will be able to compete for contracts to deliver NASA science experiments to the surface of the moon by flying lunar landers on rocket launches purchased from other commercial space companies. Those individual contracts would substitute for NASA needing to build those capacities itself.
But under this approach, NASA won't be alone in hiring these companies — the agency hopes to spur development that the commercial sector can also utilize. "We want to be first customers, not only customers," Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA's head of the science mission directorate, said during the event.
The agency did not provide any details about the choices beyond what the selected companies were: Astrobotic Technology Inc., Deep Space Systems, Draper, Firefly Aerospace Inc., Intuitive Machines LLC, Lockheed Martin Space, Masten Space Systems, Inc., Moon Express and Orbit Beyond.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
I’ve been called a pessimist for saying that the future will never be like Star Trek, because the science is mostly fake. I guess sci fi nerds need their... illusions. Like many others.
The blue prints are everywhere...the science is recorded in lots of libraries. We also know that the thing was done so we know we can do it again. We just need a practical reason and a non bankruptable one and we can do it again. Heck your cell phone has thousands of times more computing power than the computing systems aboard the Apollo craft or for that matter...a couple of modern day I7 Intel home PC’s with 16 gigs of DDR memory could run the entire Apollo program from lift off to splash down! We have no practical reasons for going to the moon right now unless we have unspoken of military or otherworldly reasons for doing so but just suggesting that sort of thing brings out predictable “you are a paranoid conspiracy mongerer” comments from the usual deep state sources.
Now if we developed cheap reliable tech that could allow regular translunar/earth space travel...as well as new bio discoveries that would mitigate radiation and the loss of bone tissue and muscular tone when in space then we might have something of a new era to be excited about! How’s that for realism!?
What they are hiring CGI artists?
No...I don’t think it will be like Star Trek as well. I have a Christian worldview after all and all the future signs point toward a thousand year reign of our Lord out of a new Jerusalem and then a remaking of the heavens and the Earth!
Might there be space travel? Don’t know but there may not be a need for it at least in the way we now envision it. Parallel dimensional travel...maybe by spiritual means!
We know the pyramids were done so theoretically we know “we” can do it again.
>>Heck your cell phone has thousands of times more computing power than the computing systems aboard the Apollo craft or for that matter...a couple of modern day I7 Intel home PC’s with 16 gigs of DDR memory could run the entire Apollo program from lift off to splash down!
The “old tech” of Apollo had redundancy built in (couldn’t go to Radio Shack, RIP, for replacement parts).
When we landed on the moon, they (people in mission control) knew what panels and technology were “not needed” any further if the crew still needed to cannibalize some components for parts to rewire/replace if for example the lander didn’t want to launch back to the capsule.
Even the space shuttle computer pales in comparison to a pocket cellphone.
However I still run into situations almost every week where my iphone is unresponsive to a touch command or other function and I have to completely shut it down and totally off for a couple of minutes so it can “recover” its brain. I wouldn’t trust my iphone to fly a plane.
One will be called “Uber Alles.” Their motto: “To the moon, Alles!”
Non sequitur...a military or spy device phone would have such redundancy...you and I don’t need it and if our phone broke down the latest models are probably better anyway. Space probes sent out now have redundant systems and back up albeit slower transmission systems.
All of the hundreds of holes in the combustion chamber baseplates in the Saturn V's F1 first stage engines were drilled by hand using a drill press! Can you imagine building something like that, that way, now?
Just going from open-cycle, gas generator engines (which the Saturn V used) to closed-cycle, staged combustion engines (like the Russian RD-180, the BE-4, Merlin, Shuttle, etc.) is a terrific improvement in efficiency. Improved engine efficiency means you can lift more payload with the same rocket. It's a big deal.
What does that even mean? We know exactly how the Saturn V worked, but we have no production lines to build any more, nor would we want to build a big rocket that way today (see above). Technology has evolved past a rocket that was designed in the late 1950's. You know, the Saturn V "instrumentation unit" cost close to a million dollars and had less computing power than the computer on your desk? Why would we want to duplicate that?
We know all about navigating spacecraft through deep space (how do you think we get those landers to Mars?).
We know all about keeping people alive in space for periods much longer than it takes to get to the moon. That's what ISS is for.
So what "knowledge" have we lost, exactly? We don't have working hardware or the production lines to build them. If there were a national emergency requiring us to land on the moon asap, we could be back there in five years, tops. That it takes longer than that is the result of bureaucracy, lack of funding, and lack of urgency.
NASA never made anything. NASA assembled components manufactured by various contractors. That knowledge is preserved on drawings in flat files and specifications in three ring binders.
By today, most of that knowledge is obsolete and replaced with products that are the outgrowth of the dusty files
With the big RIF that just hit here, I might have to look at those guys plus others just in case.
I somehow survived. Out of the MIS group, I am the least specialized.
The software in your iPhone, especially at the application level, is not developed the same way mission-critical avionics software is. It’s an old truism in engineering that you can get as much reliability as you’re willing to pay for. You wouldn’t like your iPhone much if it cost $10,000 and every app for it was $1000 or more. You don’t need that much reliability and wouldn’t pay for it.
all of the documentation of the tests and results are gone. scrapped. Junk heap of history.
Men risked their lives to plant a flag and were stabbed in the back. Moonwalkers feel betrayed that in for 40 years manned flight exploration was killed off.
There is a site that refers to it as “the second assassination of JFK”.
Not saying we are going to “rebuild it” but plenty of lessons were learned from successes and failures.
The point is even if we wanted to WE CANNOT REBUILD IT. We lost the technology designs.
>>All of the hundreds of holes in the combustion chamber baseplates in the Saturn V’s F1 first stage engines were drilled by hand using a drill press! Can you imagine building something like that, that way, now?
imagine that. the space station was drilled by hand too.
here’s an idea, we’ll 3d print a model of Elon Musk’s c&ck because that is what the fanboys want and let it orbit the sun.
I agree with BrokenArrow1, the display is overwhelming. It sat on the transporters for years and weathered badly. They finally restored the vehicle and built a climate-controlled structure around it. Pictures cannot convey the enormity. Each stage is separated from the others so you can see the rocket engines, etc. When assembled on the launch pad the Saturn V launch vehicle was 373 feet high and weighed 6 million pounds when fueled. The first stage engines burned 15 thousand pounds of fuel per second, each. This display is not to be missed. I’ve seen it several times and its FREE. (Yes, I worked there during the Apollo program.)
Also: No SpaceX. They’re kinda kicking everyone’s ass from here to next Tuesday when it comes to inexpensive rocket payload deliveries. Maybe they couldn’t keep up with demand?
Same is true of the methods for making the 16” steel that was used on the WWII battleships. It would take a long time to redevelop those processes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.