|
Author
|
Topic: What if Apollo had not been canceled?
|
frap
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 10-25-2010 07:39 AM
   
Since I was all of eleven years old when Apollo 17 left the moon, I've always wondered where would we be regarding technology, medicine and basic science if Apollo continued. Would we have colonies on the moon or Mars? Would we really have had flying cars? How many people my age now (I'm 49) went into science, engineering, aerospace or other related endeavors based on seeing Mercury, Gemini and Apollo as kids? Did our elders rip us off out of a better future when Apollo was cancelled? And the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts, the flight controllers, the engineers and scientists -- what are their thoughts about what happened? What thoughts do they have regarding what could have been if not for politics? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 10-25-2010 10:17 AM
I asked this in a slightly different form in a thread about the legacy of NASA. From the lack of response the answer would appear to be 'very little'.  |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 10-25-2010 11:05 AM
Humanity may well have a settlement on the Moon and exploratory missions shuttling back-and-forth to Mars...Of course, it's conjecture and highly speculative. But I base this scenario upon what NASA was planning before Nixon and the US Congress actually swung the axe which stranded it in LEO. The hope now is that NASA will be free to resume human spaceflight BEO, while commercial takesover in LEO. As for other advancements, I like to think that non-petrol automobiles, a space elevator and treatments for major illnesses would be as commonplace as the PC. |
cosmos-walter
Member Posts: 691
From: Salzburg, Austria
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 10-25-2010 11:16 AM
Between Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 high energetic solar flares were emitted. Most likely they would have killed an Apollo crew, if they were outside earth's atmosphere that time. I believe, this is the reason for cancelling the remaining Apollo missions. Today we still have no idea how to protect astronauts from cosmic radiation. This is why I doubt, any human beings will land on Mars within the next 50 or 100 years. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 10-25-2010 11:49 AM
I don't know about the solar flares? However, I think lack of funds was the more likely reason.A way will be found both technologically and financially to return to the moon and onto Mars should circumstances dictate. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 10-29-2010 10:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cosmos-walter:
This is why I doubt, any human beings will land on Mars within the next 50 or 100 years.
I agree. We are not ready to return to the Moon in 10 years or 50 years. However, China and other countries may attempt to repeat our Apollo missions. |
frap
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 10-29-2010 04:29 PM
If China were to go to the moon, what kind of technological spinoffs would they gain? Would they be comparable to what we gained from our Apollo missions? Also, if successful, would they have the sense to not throw it all away? |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 10-29-2010 04:43 PM
I don't know if China can actually do it or not (well in the future). They apparently want to. I would guess that China would have a few more Earth orbital missions, then a lunar orbital mission, then a landing if they have the technology. What they would gain is national prestige (the power to impress or influence). We landed on the Moon six times from 1969 to 1972. Will a moon landing make China preeminent in the world? We will see. China's space exploits so far have not made an impression on the world. Will they establish a base or colony on the Moon? I doubt it. That is a very risky situation. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 10-29-2010 04:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by frap:
If China were to go to the moon, what kind of technological spinoffs would they gain? Would they be comparable to what we gained from our Apollo missions? Also, if successful, would they have the sense to not throw it all away?
I don't think the technological benefits from Apollo have been 'thrown away.' The Apollo programme developed any number of new industrial techniques that improved American industry as well as creating many, many new business opportunities. Just a couple of examples are PERT and WD-40. All that was 'thrown away' were manned missions into space. That aside, everything else remained firmly on the ground. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2010 04:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
I would guess that China would have a few more Earth orbital missions, then a lunar orbital mission, then a landing if they have the technology.
China has stated that its plan for the next decade is to focusing on launching a multi-module space station (similar to the Soviet Salyut/Almaz stations), to be visited by multiple Shenzhou crewed spacecraft. It has said the earliest a manned lunar program would be considered would be in the 2025 time frame. The Chinese do plan to launch robotic landers in the interim, a continuation of its on-going Chang'e program. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2010 04:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Just a couple of examples are PERT and WD-40.
WD-40 was a spinoff of Convair's Atlas missile program and PERT came from the Polaris missile program. Neither were spinoffs of the Apollo program. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 10-29-2010 04:54 PM
I sometimes wonder where we'd be now if we had spent the same amount on space exploration as we have on national defense since 1960. (Don't get me wrong; I'm pro-strong military). I'm sure we'd have bases on the moon and Mars by now, and probably have sent manned vehicles to scout Venus and Jupiter. Maybe beyond.Humanity is a curious thing. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 10-30-2010 12:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
I sometimes wonder where we'd be now if we had spent the same amount on space exploration as we have on national defense since 1960.
That would have been a very ambitious and expensive program. The military issue aside, we had a Moon program in 1972. Are you saying that we could have had a base on the Moon and a base on Mars and a manned recon near Venus and Jupiter by now - from 1960 to 2010 (50 years)? I do not think so.I cannot even imagine how much it would have cost for manned bases on the Moon and Mars and manned missions to look into Venus and Jupiter. Of course, we cannot land on Venus or Jupiter for many reasons, as you know. I cannot think of any reason for a manned mission to recon Venus. We have adequate unmanned spacecraft to do that, if we wish. As for Jupiter, that would be an extremely long round-trip mission. It would also be very dangerous and extremely expensive and we do not have the technology for such a lengthy manned mission to one of Jupiter's moons. We will have to leave that for a future generation, perhaps 100 years from now. Yes, we did abandon the Apollo space program for many reasons. We did not throw it away. We set a goal and we reached the goal. Our plans to return to the Moon by 2020 or later have been scrapped for now because of the economy and a new set of goals on Earth. I believe that once China is more active in Earth orbit and once they attempt to reach the Moon in 15 years or so, we will set a new goal to colonize a section of the Moon, and again for many reasons mentioned in many threads on this site. Between 1972 and 2010 we had several successful near-earth goals in space, not the lease of which was a major part in the construction of the International Space Station and over 100 successful space shuttle missions, including one that launches the Hubble Space Telescope and others that repaired both the ISS and the HST. These were goals that we achieved and we will have more goals in space after the economy improves. It is not only a matter of money. There is also the need for new technology to keep the astronauts safe while we achieve these future goals. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 10-30-2010 02:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
WD-40 was a spinoff of Convair's Atlas missile program and PERT came from the Polaris missile program.
OK - you are technically correct but they are good examples of ground based benefits of the space programmes. PERT was used, however, and grew during the M/G/A years.If you need a specific Apollo example - the growth and development of Michoud. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 10-30-2010 07:27 AM
All I'm saying is that if we had spent trillions on space over the past 50 years (not saying we should have), along with same effort and human resources we put into national defense, we'd be so far beyond where we actually are today it would boggle the mind. I stand by my assertion. |
frap
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 10-30-2010 07:45 AM
When I state we threw Apollo away, I'm thinking of Apollo 18-20 and the Apollo Applications Program with the exception of Skylab. Yes, the technology from Apollo is being used right now as I write this, but what else could we have had if Apollo had not been cancelled? Manned deep space missions seem to accelerate innovations in science and medicine in comparison to LEO missions. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 10-30-2010 08:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
I'm sure we'd have bases on the moon and Mars by now, and probably have sent manned vehicles to scout Venus and Jupiter. Maybe beyond.
But specifically what did you have in mind by "...manned missions to scout Venus and Jupiter."? Why would we ever need a human being to risk his/her life to scout Venus since unmanned spacecraft can do the job and can even penetrate the clouds and land to obtain readings for a few seconds before being crushed. As for Jupiter, it is at such a great distance, how could we keep the astronauts alive for such a long trip? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2010 08:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
If you need a specific Apollo example - the growth and development of Michoud.
I wouldn't call this a spinoff; otherwise, you could make the same case for all the NASA centers and contractor facilities around the nation, which is to say that it wasn't specific to space. If the nation had decided to wage war on the Soviet Union rather than race them to space, the same (if not even higher) uptick in growth and development would have been seen.Michoud was originally a production facility supporting World War II and the Korean War. Its largest facility, which was where the Saturn stages were later assembled, was first built to support the production of plywood cargo planes for the war effort. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 10-30-2010 08:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
Why would we ever need a human being to risk his/her life to scout Venus since unmanned spacecraft can do the job...
The same question could be applied to manned flights to Mars, or the moon for that matter. The simple answer: because they're there, and it's in mankind's DNA to physically explore beyond it's immediate horizon. The technology to overcome the hurdles would have (and will some day) taken care of itself. We will travel to Venus, Jupiter, and beyond some day, unless we cause ourselves to become extinct through our own imperfections as a species. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 10-30-2010 10:17 AM
No, that doesn't answer my question. We cannot land on Venus or on Jupiter. We can land on our Moon and on Mars and we will colonize both of them well in the future. We will never be able to land men on Venus because of the excessive temperature and air pressure. We will never land on Jupiter or Saturn or Neptune because they are made of gas. So they are not comparable to the Moon or Mars. What can a man do near Venus that a machine cannot do much better? |
dfox
Member Posts: 208
From: Scarsdale, NY, United States
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 10-30-2010 05:27 PM
Hit a golf ball. |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 10-30-2010 06:17 PM
Never say never. I can see us landing on Venus one day far into the future when we have technologies that we can only dream of now. But your point is well taken. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 10-30-2010 07:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
We cannot land on Venus or on Jupiter.
I never suggested we would land. But you seem to be suggesting there is no compelling reason for humans to travel to these planets and study them from orbit. Maybe from a purely technological standpoint, but if you really think we should and would bypass human exploration of these worlds, well then we are simply living on different planets. Pun intended. The fact that my suggestion of visiting these planets has apparently ruined your day is proof that I'm wasting my time going back and forth with you. Good day!  |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 10-30-2010 08:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dfox:
Hit a golf ball.
Or ten.  |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 10-30-2010 09:11 PM
The bottom line is that you are both correct. While robotic spacecraft can provide detailed investigations to places like Venus and Jupiter (or it's moons), it would be great to have human eyes orbiting these planets even though they cannot land (at this time). But unfortunately dollars do come into play, so it is best to spend our limited dollars where they have the greatest impact. We do have the technology to land humans on Mars and our moon, and if dollars are available we should do so. But for now robotic missions are the best bet for far away planets and moons. Unfortunately we are now focused on landing on an asteroid instead of Mars or our moon. How unfortunate! |
328KF
Member Posts: 1234
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 10-30-2010 10:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dfox:
Hit a golf ball.
"Inches and inches and inches..."  |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 10-31-2010 03:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I wouldn't call this a spinoff; otherwise, you could make the same case for all the NASA centers and contractor facilities around the nation, which is to say that it wasn't specific to space.
Michoud as a township was dying on its feet until the Apollo test facility was brought to the town. Apollo brought an increase in population of over 36,000 as workers moved in to serve the new establishment. Obviously, not all worked for NASA. Those that didn't came to service the needs of the aerospace community. In terms of 1960's values, spending in the shops rose by over £11 million and bank deposits by £8 million. At maximum development there were ten thousand more cars on the roads of the area. Nearly seven thousand new jobs were created outside the space industry - teachers, waitresses, laundry workers, garage attendants just to mention a few. This was definitely linked to Apollo and is therefore a direct benefit that may be linked to the programme.And yes, one can make the same claim for other NASA centres particularly around the Universities where new research facilities sprang up round the campuses (campi?). Of course, one can nit-pick. Taken to the ultimate I suppose one should recognise that the father(s) of manned spaceflight are neither the Americans nor the Russians but the Italians where in the late 1700's the Ruggieri brothers were already launching animals on top of rockets. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 11-04-2010 03:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LM1:
We cannot land on Venus or on Jupiter.
I stand corrected. Yesterday I saw a movie on the Science Channel called "Venus Uncovered." In it they speculated on a manned mission to Venus in spite of the heat and air pressure. The movie was very interesting. I therefore agree with you that we could have had a manned mission to Venus by now if funds had not been cut. All we need is the technology to do it. |
advertisement