That is, does NASA still have all the training equipment, computers and so forth that would be required for a new moon program, or would all of that have to be rebuilt as well as building new rockets?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
-
$\begingroup$ Do you mean the ground-based mission-planning computers, or the onboard computers? $\endgroup$– Russell BorogoveCommented May 26, 2017 at 2:10
-
1$\begingroup$ You could of course use the technology from then to fabricate ... updated components. SpaceX is planing to orbit a couple around the Moon in 2018(?) so the ability to get there and back exist / will exist by the time you could put the project together. $\endgroup$– Enigma MaitreyaCommented May 26, 2017 at 3:19
-
1$\begingroup$ New rockets and new capsules would require new training and computer systems. You'd want new ones anyway - I don't think anyone would be happy flying with a 50-year-old ground system for which there are no spares. $\endgroup$– pjc50Commented May 26, 2017 at 11:13
-
$\begingroup$ Related: Why not build Saturn V's again? $\endgroup$– dotancohenCommented May 26, 2017 at 17:33
-
$\begingroup$ The available technology to build a flight or landing simulator has changed dramatically. To simulate the view of the moon during a landing training, a modell had to be scanned by a camera. Nowadays there are realistic computer generated images for flight simulation of all phases of the mission. $\endgroup$– UweCommented May 26, 2017 at 18:50
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
No Apollo training equipment is still functional, at least at Johnson Space Center (JSC).
The Apollo Mission Simulators were removed and sent to museums. The facility space they once occupied in Building 5 was then filled with the Shuttle Mission Simulators. They have now been removed and sent to museums.
(personal photo)
The sole remaining Lunar Landing Training Vehicle hangs from the ceiling in the lobby of JSC's Teague Auditorium. It is in a safed museum configuration. It is not inconceivable that it could be returned to flight status but it is unlikely.
(personal photo)
The Skylab simulator was removed from Building 5 and placed on display in Space Center Houston.
answered May 26, 2017 at 3:28
-
6$\begingroup$ It would still probably be safer and cheaper to rebuild the whole thing from scratch (using the original missions only as a guide not not make the same mistakes, but not as material) than to try to refurbish equipment found in museums. $\endgroup$– vszCommented May 26, 2017 at 5:07
-
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
First, just about none of the original equipment is in usable condition. It may not be completely impossible to refurbish it, but it would be so far beyond the realm of the achievable that is might as well be. If you really had your heart set on it, some Saturn V's were built for Apollo 18-20 but never flown. Not sure about LEM and capsules though. Second, were all that in usable condition, there's no way that it would be politically viable to make people's lives depend, very visibly, on technology 40 years obsolete.
-
$\begingroup$ Even if all that would be in usable condition, you would need a lot of replacement parts to be prepared for a countdown. But I don't believe that 40 years old seals and cable isolations will be in good condition. Cable binders became very brittle in some decades and a lot of other plastic parts too. But the most important argument is: nowbody wants to be responsible if astronauts lives are lost by using so old equpment. $\endgroup$– UweCommented May 27, 2017 at 8:41