Timeline for Do we still have all the blueprints to go to the Moon? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 2017 at 14:41 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| May 28, 2017 at 21:12 | |||||
| May 28, 2017 at 14:22 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Copy-editing
|
| May 28, 2017 at 1:21 | comment | added | Anthony X | For all the gaps which may exist in the technical records from the Apollo era, there is still a lot of useful knowledge and wisdom from back then to inform a return to the Moon. | |
| May 28, 2017 at 1:18 | comment | added | Anthony X | "Can we?" is a largely irrelevant question given that there would be no benefit to a lunar mission using technology from 50 years ago. Apart from the economics of manufacturing all the specialized components the way they did 50 years ago because of the limitations which existed 50 years ago, there is the safety aspect. Even though it was designed with sufficient safety/redundancy to maximize the likelihood of a successful outcome, the crew risks accepted back then would likely be unconscionable today. To go back to the Moon requires a more modern solution. | |
| May 27, 2017 at 19:35 | comment | added | user64742 | @David Hammen they said the data would be unreadable in a decade or two, not at this date and time. Also, I didn't say it would be easy, I said that they what they were describing is just transferring data. They were over complicating their post. It would be far simpler to just say that we cannot transfer the old documents as the readers no longer exist. Also, the word "just" isn't a dangerous word. It's a filler word that has literally 0 meaning in a sentence. I write it there because it sounded good in terms of sentence flow... -_- | |
| May 27, 2017 at 16:19 | comment | added | David Hammen | @TheGreatDuck -- Re "that's just called transferring everything" -- You used "just" there, which is possibly the most dangerous word in engineering. How do you transfer over data that is unreadable? | |
| May 27, 2017 at 15:08 | history | closed |
Russell Borogove Nathan Tuggy Fred Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩 SE - stop firing the good guys |
Duplicate of Why not build Saturn V's again? | |
| May 27, 2017 at 12:02 | answer | added | Peter Neilson | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 27, 2017 at 9:11 | vote | accept | SF. | ||
| May 27, 2017 at 1:57 | comment | added | user64742 | @OrganicMarble Well, that's just called transferring everything over to new databases and storage systems. I think the question is primarily interested in whether it is feasible for NASA to restore those plans and get them to a new computer system or cloud storage. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 20:56 | comment | added | Organic Marble | Even if you had every blueprint and spec, many of the parts would not be available. Look at the travails that the people trying to restore the Lunar Orbiter tapes went through. "The only working version of the Ampex tape player ($300K when new) was discovered in a chicken coop and restored with the help of the original designer. There is only one person on Earth who still refurbishes these tape heads, and he is retiring this year. The skills to read this data archive are on the cusp of disappearing forever." thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/… | |
| May 26, 2017 at 16:52 | answer | added | NPSF3000 | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 26, 2017 at 16:23 | answer | added | sds | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 26, 2017 at 16:02 | history | edited | SF. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 252 characters in body
|
| May 26, 2017 at 15:50 | comment | added | pjc50 | Note that, for almost any large project of almost any organisation, trying to do it again with only the written records and no staff continuity tends to be impossible without a substantial re-discovery/invention effort. There will be important stuff that was known only to oral culture and never written down. The Nimrod fiasco is a good example of this. I can see a "just rebuild Apollo" project wasting tens of billions of dollars and ultimately producing nothing workable, in exactly the same way. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 15:40 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 27, 2017 at 15:08 | |||||
| May 26, 2017 at 13:16 | comment | added | SF. | @called2voyage: Hobbes' answer is already pretty good. If some essential procedures were undocumented and are forgotten, that would be it. Some specific examples would be great but if none appear, I'll approve his answer. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 12:59 | comment | added | called2voyage♦ | I like the question, but I'm having trouble envisioning a good answer. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 12:48 | answer | added | Hobbes | timeline score: 30 | |
| May 26, 2017 at 12:44 | answer | added | Fred | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 26, 2017 at 12:36 | comment | added | Uwe | Building the flight computers for CM and LM just the same way is not reasonable. The days of core rope memories and low scale integration chips are long ago. The necessary high reliability of the electronic parts is not achievable by producing only the parts necessary for one mission. There are better methods now to build the combustion chambers and nozzles of the rocket engines by welding a lot of tubes. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 11:23 | history | asked | SF. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |