posted 04-12-2021 05:10 PM               

What are you measuring in your comparison of the 60 years? Tech development?

In the realm of space flight we went from Yuri Gagarin's first man in space to landing on the moon in 8 years! Then driving around on the moon in the rover. Then nuclear power pack RTG-driven planetary rovers. Then factor in numerous space shuttle missions, a telescope that looks back to the beginning of time, and an international space station in continuous operation.

posted 04-14-2021 08:04 AM               

War drove the development of the biplane through the first world war, with governments throwing resources at developing faster and more reliable designs.

The second world war drove technology development on a much greater scale, with aircraft types at the beginning of the conflict being left over biplane designs on the allied side and by the end of the conflict jet engines and pressurized airframes, and the introduction of radar.
The cold war again drove aviation development at a fast pace, and it could be argued that the space race was an annex of this same phase.

The fourth-generation fighter aircraft technology is a combination of streamlining cold war designs with the utilization of high-tech aerospace materials and technology that were developed during the cold war and space race. This leads to today's technology.

Commercial aviation rides on the back of these technology drivers. The development of transistors and integrated circuits was driven by the development of the Polaris missile, the Saturn V LVDC, and the Apollo GNC. Fly by wire systems stemmed from the AGC, and the shuttle was an enabler of many additional commercial aviation system advancements.

Along the way, there have been many aerospace companies that developed these technologies either fail or merge with other companies, which kills off some designs and pushes others.

How much of the Space Transportation System was funded or developed for national defense and military application? And would the system have come into existence without military support? The shuttle took 10 years to develop. Its successor has taken longer, using leftover shuttle systems, and does not have the same drivers behind its development.

posted 04-14-2021 11:15 AM            

For me two key moments ended this hope, probably forever as far as I'm concerned: the civil rights movement which pressurised the U.S. government in the late 1960s and early 1970s, leading to the demise of Apollo.

And then the Challenger disaster, in 1986, just as plans were afoot to build Space Station Freedom. Although one could also list the termination of Constellation, in 2009, as being disastrous.

posted 04-14-2021 11:43 AM               

There is no driving need for lunar base. Especially beyond an outpost.

No, it was not the civil rights movement. Apollo met its goal of beating the Soviets. There never was the intent to put a base on the moon or do exploration. Apollo ended also because the risks were too high.

Aside from the loss of life, the Challenger disaster actually did more good than bad. It showed that the shuttle was a flawed vehicle, not in how the accident happened but in that it would never support the flight rate, costs or all the missions, The accident allowed for the U.S. ELV programs to be reinvigorated and actually surpass what would have happened in the 90's/00's. Faster, Better, Cheaper would not have happened. Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) would not have happened. We have a cheaper reusable vehicle now. We will have multiple human spacecraft and launch vehicles by the end of the year.

Termination of Constellation was a good thing. It wasn't going anywhere either. Too expensive and no real need. Should have kept with systems of approach and used existing vehicles.

posted 04-14-2021 12:30 PM            

Mining and colonisation are not on their list of priorities, so what's the rationalisation: human survival or microgravity science?

posted 04-14-2021 01:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
In that case let's gamble and put the likes of Musk, Jeff Bezos and Peter Beck in charge...

---

The likes of Musk, Jeff Bezos and Peter Beck are better off managing their own private programs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyMan1958:
I'd say in human (space)flight the last 60 years haven't progressed as fast as piloted flight did in it's first 60 years. On the other hand, robotic (space)flight has grown by leaps and bounds the last 60 years.

---