Author
|
Topic: What if the Apollo program took place today?
|
ASCAN1984 Member Posts: 1049 From: County Down, Nothern Ireland Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-28-2014 03:33 PM
What if the Apollo program had never happened in the 1960s and it was instead a reality today? |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-28-2014 03:56 PM
Tom Stafford once suggested that Apollo would fail if staged today. Assuming everything played out like it did in the 1960s, he said we would never recover from the Apollo 1 fire. If the Internet had been there when Apollo went on, we would have had a very difficult time of completing Apollo. After the tragic fire and at other times, there were all different engineers and scientists who said we should do it 'this way' or it's unsafe but then we had good decision makers who made the decisions and we went ahead.Today when that happens, they go to their computer and send an e-mail to the staffers on the Hill, the congressmen, the press, to you people, and so it shows up all over. We didn't have that in Apollo. It would have been lots tougher in Apollo. Think about that. |
Captain Apollo Member Posts: 260 From: UK Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 11-28-2014 06:06 PM
Wise words from Mumbles. |
alanh_7 Member Posts: 1252 From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 11-28-2014 06:37 PM
I do not think the commitment would be there at all today. In fact I always wondered what would have happened had Kennedy not been assassinated? Would the commitment to follow through with the lunar landings have been a national priority had he lived? Or would this have been a vague political commitment by a president, that would have been pushed back as other national priorities took over? |
randy Member Posts: 2231 From: West Jordan, Utah USA Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-28-2014 07:07 PM
I would have to agree with Gen. Stafford also. The commitment just isn't there. Look what happened after Challenger and Columbia. It's like people just threw up their hands and said "we give up!" People are afraid to do anything that is a challenge. Like Pres. Kennedy said, we choose to explore space because it IS difficult, and it measures the best of our energies and talents. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-28-2014 07:38 PM
I didn't take what Stafford said as questioning NASA's commitment. Rather, I think he was referring to the "too many cooks" (or "backseat drivers") syndrome, with Congress, the press and the public (mostly well-meaning but only partially informed space enthusiasts) exerting pressure on NASA to do what they think is the best as opposed to what the space agency decides for itself. Internally, I think NASA is able to commit and carry out a mission, were it not for the external forces interfering. quote: Originally posted by alanh_7: Would the commitment to follow through with the lunar landings have been a national priority had he lived?
I don't think Apollo was ever a national priority, and given that Kennedy himself was trying to find a way to curtail or end the program, I think his untimely death was indeed critical to extending Apollo for as long as it lasted. |
randy Member Posts: 2231 From: West Jordan, Utah USA Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-28-2014 08:54 PM
I wasn't questioning NASA's commitment. I was referring to the lack of public commitment. |
moorouge Member Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 11-29-2014 02:34 AM
I tend to agree with the 'too many cooks' theory about today, especially when one remembers that no politician wants to be associated with anything that is remotely likely to go wrong and thus reflect on his judgement.However, that is for today. Going back to the 60's I wonder what would have been the future of Apollo if LBJ had stood for re-election in 1968 and won. Of the key players at the time, he was the only real enthusiast for space and in many respects it was Johnson who deserves the credit for the Kennedy decision to go the the Moon in the first place. |
Ronpur Member Posts: 1220 From: Brandon, Fl Registered: May 2012
|
posted 11-29-2014 10:41 AM
I often wonder about Johnson in another term would have been like for NASA as well. But he still had Vietnam taking so much resources.The Saturn V construction shutdown and AAP cutback still happened with him as well, so who knows. There is definitely a lot of truth about the internet and the many different opinions being voiced. You can see that on any space oriented web site or forum. SLS, commercial space, robots or manned are all issues that polarize those that are fans of spaceflight, let alone the opinions of those who think spaceflight of any kind is a waste. A strong leader in NASA HQ or the White House is what is needed to get a strong program going forward. Someone who can convince congress to give NASA a penny for every dollar, not a half-penny. But, that is just my opinion! |
ASCAN1984 Member Posts: 1049 From: County Down, Nothern Ireland Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-29-2014 11:55 AM
I wonder about the technological difference with now days much more advanced. Would there have been a much longer stay on the surface? |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-29-2014 12:39 PM
If you change the technology, is it still Apollo? There have been numerous plans and discussions about how to return to the moon, all of which are not Apollo. I think Apollo is defined by the architecture. |
chet Member Posts: 1506 From: Beverly Hills, Calif. Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-30-2014 12:38 AM
Great question!I think Stafford is absolutely right, especially given the degree of political correctness that drives so many priorities today. Look what happened to the poor guy who led a team to landing a craft on a comet, yet was lambasted to the point of tears because of his politically incorrect shirt! Look at Jeffrey Kluger's reaction to the crash of the Virgin Galactic ship not long ago. The right stuff of yesteryear has turned into too much of the wrong stuff today for me to believe the USA could ever pull off the same feat in today's environment. |
datkatz Member Posts: 176 From: New York, NY Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 11-30-2014 12:43 AM
Never happen today.(Hell, we almost left the Hubble to rot because NASA bigwigs decided shuttle flights to the telescope were "too dangerous.")
|
golddog Member Posts: 210 From: australia Registered: Feb 2008
|
posted 11-30-2014 02:07 AM
Sadly I find myself in agreement with what has been discussed here thus far. As a keen student of the U.S. space program, I have over the years formed the opinion that Kennedy called for the moon landing out of political expediency, to kill the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the fear generated by the Russian successes — and then spent much of his remaining time trying to find a way to pare back his decision without looking bad. His successors have been able to achieve that for him. No politician, regardless of party, has the will to push space. Regretfully, I doubt I will see anything like Apollo again in my lifetime. I have perhaps 30 years left. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-30-2014 06:19 AM
quote: Originally posted by chet: Look what happened to the poor guy who led a team to landing a craft on a comet... Look at Jeffrey Kluger's reaction...
And yet, the craft landed on the comet and Virgin Galactic continues to push forward.Personally, I think Stafford's comment is accurate only for Apollo, not for the feat of landing on the moon or space exploration in general. Apollo succeeded, but not without getting a lot wrong at the expense of human life (sometimes needlessly) and in a manner that guaranteed the program was a dead end once the first flag was planted on the surface. It was a tremendous engineering accomplishment, a milestone for humanity but, at the same time, was achieved for the wrong reasons. That's not to say the politicians and the voices external to NASA aren't a problem. They are, but the space industry is finding its way around them. The pessimism being expressed here is really not new. The same doubt existed during Apollo but there wasn't an efficient means for the majority to share it publicly. What the internet has done is pull back that curtain and expose how little public opinion means to what we accomplish in space. |
GACspaceguy Member Posts: 2516 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 11-30-2014 07:00 AM
I agree with Robert here. Apollo was a great engineering achievement but a short sighted "program." While I cannot give specific detail I have to say, in every aviation development program I have been involved in, there have been an abundance of naysayers. The interesting part is they tend to be major players in the program! I cannot imagine if there was the ability of the public, with only minimal knowledge of the details, to comment on the progress and need for that program. I fully understand why SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed and others keep the detail to themselves. |
Tykeanaut Member Posts: 2216 From: Worcestershire, England, UK. Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 11-30-2014 08:07 AM
Interesting question. Maybe Apollo was too much too soon? After all, a first landing on the moon now in 2014 would have been a fantastic achievement. Unfortunately we seem to have gone backwards instead of forwards. The UK and France used to have supersonic air passenger travel and the US went to the moon, sad really.As for today, there are far too many health and safety issues that would probably make Apollo almost impossible. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-30-2014 08:36 AM
quote: Originally posted by Tykeanaut: Unfortunately we seem to have gone backwards instead of forwards.
I would suggest Apollo was more of a sideways step, and that we're still moving forward. Remove Apollo and look at the progression of space history: Vostok and Mercury, Voskhod and Gemini, Salyut and Skylab, Soyuz and Shuttle, Mir and International Space Station. From that perspective, we are moving forward... |
Tykeanaut Member Posts: 2216 From: Worcestershire, England, UK. Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 11-30-2014 11:51 AM
Would that progression have happened without Apollo though? Just a thought. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-30-2014 12:57 PM
A good thought and in my mind, there's no doubt that Apollo drove progress, both spurring the programs before it and inspiring the projects that followed. I just don't see the latter programs as a step backwards, but more of a return to the path forward. |
garymilgrom Member Posts: 1966 From: Atlanta, GA Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 11-30-2014 03:22 PM
Many think Kennedy's Apollo deadline undercut what they saw as the natural order of space exploration - capsules, then a space station in LEO, and only then using the station as a starting point for the moon and planets. So Apollo won the battle (the political battle it was designed for) but lost the war (a coherent, long term plan for the future). |
alanh_7 Member Posts: 1252 From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 11-30-2014 06:55 PM
I wish I could agree that there was a clear path for any of the manned programs towards a larger long term goal. I think there has never been a clear long term path or objective.Eisenhower had no clear plans after Project Mercury. Kennedy made a manned lunar landing on the moon as a goal only after his administration realized they could not catch the Russians in the near future space objectives. The shuttle was supposed to be a tool to make spaceflight affordable. And the ISS was a political tool in many ways to help solidify a relationship with post cold war Russia. In their own way they were all political tools for each era. I do not really see a clear step by step goal to anything beyond each programs own near future objectives. Each program has operated under the political will of the party in power. And that will changes with each administration. It is difficult to have clear, progressive long term objectives under those circumstance. |
datkatz Member Posts: 176 From: New York, NY Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 11-30-2014 09:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: Remove Apollo and look at the progression of space history: Vostok and Mercury, Voskhod and Gemini, Salyut and Skylab, Soyuz and Shuttle, Mir and International Space Station. From that perspective, we are moving forward...
No, Robert. From that perspective we're moving 'round and 'round. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-30-2014 09:42 PM
I can't tell if you're joking, but if your only measure of progress is direction of travel, sure. |
datkatz Member Posts: 176 From: New York, NY Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-01-2014 12:10 AM
I'm not joking, Robert. I wouldn't consider fifty years locked in LEO progress. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-01-2014 02:38 AM
To each their own then. Personally, I don't think progress can be defined simply by destination. If one compares each program to the next, there is a demonstrated progression of capability, skill and technology. |
moorouge Member Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 12-01-2014 05:42 AM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: If one compares each program to the next, there is a demonstrated progression of capability, skill and technology.
For example? Bigger isn't necessarily better and it depends on which programme/objectives one uses as a comparison. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-01-2014 05:54 AM
Look at the progression of rendezvous and docking from Gemini on through the systems now being developed for Orion. Or, for another example, extravehicular activity equipment and skills set. Or the advancement of resource reclamation (water recycling on the space station). These and many other areas have progressed toward the capabilities needed to work away from the Earth, where real-time communications with a ground control team won't be possible and where resupplying a spacecraft, station or colony won't always be practical. |
moorouge Member Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 12-01-2014 09:01 AM
quote: Originally posted by alanh_7: Each program has operated under the political will of the party in power. And that will changes with each administration. It is difficult to have clear, progressive long term objectives under those circumstance.
Isn't this part of the price one has to pay for living in a democracy? Was it Lincoln who said, "You can only fool all of the people some of the time." When Kennedy achieved this for Apollo, he did so in a very special set of circumstances. These have never been repeated and are unlikely to happen again in the present world order. Unless of course somewhere in the future there waits in the wings a space mad dictator.
|
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-01-2014 09:44 AM
quote: Originally posted by moorouge: Unless of course somewhere in the future there waits in the wings a space mad dictator.
No dictator is needed, just a change in the way that NASA is funded. Other federal projects are funded on multi-year budgets; NASA's budget is decided year to year. It is difficult to stage any type of long-term plan without knowing what funding will be available in the out years. There have been proposals (inside and outside of Congress) to change NASA's funding such that it would receive project-based budgets that would allow the space agency to execute a plan without being at the whim of Congress or the President. (Of course, the President sets policy and could halt a program, but it wouldn't be for budget reasons.) |
sev8n Member Posts: 236 From: Dallas TX USA Registered: Jul 2012
|
posted 12-01-2014 10:33 AM
quote: Originally posted by moorouge: Was it Lincoln who said, "You can only fool all of the people some of the time."
The quote is widely attributed to be: "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." |
datkatz Member Posts: 176 From: New York, NY Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-01-2014 12:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: These and many other areas have progressed toward the capabilities needed to work away from the Earth, where real-time communications with a ground control team won't be possible and where resupplying a spacecraft, station or colony won't always be practical.
Pointless if you don't leave Earth! |
schnappsicle Member Posts: 396 From: Houston, TX, USA Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted 12-02-2014 05:09 AM
Wow, so much to discuss here. First of all, we were never behind the Soviets in space. The US could easily have sent up the first satellite and the first man in space, but they chose safety over accomplishments. The Soviets were only first because they chose to risk the lives of their cosmonauts. Also, you have to remember that the cosmonauts weren't pilots in space like the astronauts were. Training for a typical Vostok mission took about 6 months while the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts spent about 2 years in training for their missions. I think Kennedy and Johnson both used the impression that the US was behind to coax more space dollars out of Congress.Those who think LEO missions are a step backwards need to look back and remember the trouble the Skylab astronauts had readjusting to earth gravity upon their return. We need to learn to live in space for extended periods of time before we travel to Mars or any other planet. That's what the ISS missions are all about. They don't have the glitz of going to the moon, but they're far more important than the Apollo missions when it comes to furthering the reach of man in space. Regarding Stafford's statement, there will always be those who say we shouldn't do something grand, but I'd like to think there are enough people like us who are willing stand up and defend what is right that the doubters will never be heard from again. Of course we didn't have the Internet after the Apollo 1 fire, but we still had enough paper and envelopes and 8 cent stamps to get us to the moon. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-02-2014 06:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by schnappsicle: The US could easily have sent up the first satellite and the first man in space, but they chose safety over accomplishments.
The decision to attempt the United States' first satellite launch with the Navy's Vanguard was not based on safety concerns. quote: The Soviets were only first because they chose to risk the lives of their cosmonauts.
I don't think that's a fair characterization of the Soviet Vostok program, or the reason why Gagarin was first. Yes, we delayed Shepard to fly another chimp, but the Soviets flew a mannequin before putting a human aboard. quote: Training for a typical Vostok mission took about 6 months while the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts spent about 2 years in training for their missions.
I can understand comparing Vostok to Mercury, but to Gemini and Apollo? |
chet Member Posts: 1506 From: Beverly Hills, Calif. Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 12-02-2014 12:00 PM
The answer to the question that started this thread - "What if the Apollo program had never happened in the 1960s and it was instead a reality today?" - seems pretty clear.Given the current levels of commitment (and follow-thru) to improving education, fighting terrorist armies abroad, securing our border, improving foreign relations, reducing the deficit, and just about anything else you can name, I don't think a serious case could be made that we'd be putting anyone on the moon anytime soon. That's not a questioning of American capability, but sadly, of our current state of unserious and overpoliticized leadership. |
ivorwilliams Member Posts: 69 From: Welwyn Garden City, UK Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 12-02-2014 12:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tykeanaut: As for today, there are far too many health and safety issues that would probably make Apollo almost impossible.
That doesn't bode well then for any future US push for another moon landing, capturing an asteroid or even a Mars mission. I just can't see these ever happening and it greatly saddens me. I am so glad that I was born at a time that enabled to me to witness all NASA missions from the first Gemini launch to the last shuttle landing. |
Fra Mauro Member Posts: 1624 From: Bethpage, N.Y. Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 12-03-2014 08:11 AM
With our dysfunctional national government and an indifferent public, Apollo would never happen today. |
BBlatcher Member Posts: 57 From: Savannah, GA, USA Registered: Aug 2011
|
posted 12-03-2014 09:58 AM
It depends. Part of Apollo's success was the wheeling and dealing James Webb did as administrater, along with LBJ's political muscle. I don't think one can firmly say either way. It would depend on what NASA had been doing for the past 50 years. If a mostly unmanned program kept sending back dazzling photos of the solar system and the manned part had dealt with a lot of the living in space programs and a savvy political leader in the right climate appeared, Apollo 2000 could happen. Hell, do it through a military space program and it could almost be a slam dunk. |
chet Member Posts: 1506 From: Beverly Hills, Calif. Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 12-03-2014 01:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by BBlatcher: Hell, do it through a military space program and it could almost be a slam dunk.
Except the U.S. military has been, and continues to be, slashed to the bone. The Kennedy "vision thing" (or political thing, if you prefer a more reality based version) is DOA today. Robert may be correct that, big picture, progress is always being made, but not by any grand political design pushing the premise of the USA as a great spacefaring nation. Abdication is the rule of the day. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-03-2014 02:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by chet: Except the U.S. military has been, and continues to be, slashed to the bone.
Except that even taking the cuts into consideration, the Department of Defends continues to spend more on space activities then the entire NASA budget (aeronautics included). |