1st Manned Moon Landing - 45 Years Ago
Discussion
Grumfutock said:
Because something that cost $1Bn in the US will only cost $1mil in Russia?
It's not REALLY just a matter of cost.It's a matter of choosing what you want to spend your money on.
In 1961, America was willing to commit huge amounts of money to beat the Russians to the moon.
By 1972, it wasn't.
And today, it seems not to really care that much. Maybe they have lost the excitement and enthusiasm that they once had.
There are some programmes bumbling along in the background, mostly privately run with seed money provided by NASA and which should produce operational manned spacecraft within five to ten years.
NASA own in house maned spacecraft is Orion which is making (slow) progress. The rocket that will put it into space has yet to be built.
The REAL American space budget is run by the Department of Defense - which does NOT include NASA.
Efbe said:
how is Russia able to carry on funding space missions but the US not?
Not simply a matter of funding, but rather lack of foresight and political indecision. After the moon landing NASA/US cancelled the production of all Saturn launch vehicles in favour of the Space Shuttle, instantly killing off any capability for manned flight beyond low Earth orbit. When the Shuttle was in turn forcibly retired in 2010 the US had no replacement man-rated launcher ready - they'd expected to keep flying the Shuttle for several more years. Obama then cancelled the Ares launcher programme, and after a long delay replaced it with the SLS, which due to low funding is proceeding at a snail's pace and won't be ready for its first unmanned test flight until 2018 at the earliest, and won't carry people until at least 2020. They are also funding private development of manned spacecraft, though again they can't seem to pick one and are currently spreading their budget across three competing spacecraft ( SpaceX, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada ), so again progress isn't as fast as it could have been.
In the meantime the Russians have continued to use the same basic R-7 launcher and Soyuz spacecraft they first developed back in the '60s.
So essentially NASA have pissed away $billions repeatedly developing new launchers ( several of which were cancelled before they got anywhere ) as well as launching the very expensive Shuttle, while the Russians kept plugging away spending their budget on actual launches.
Grumfutock said:
Eric Mc said:
It still has to make choices on where it spends its money. DARPA seems to be doing fine regarding its space budget.
Correct however DARPA has a budget of $2.8Bn whilst NASA get $17.8Bn? I guess space hammers are cheaper in Russia 
Eric Mc said:
Grumfutock said:
Eric Mc said:
It still has to make choices on where it spends its money. DARPA seems to be doing fine regarding its space budget.
Correct however DARPA has a budget of $2.8Bn whilst NASA get $17.8Bn? I guess space hammers are cheaper in Russia And I bet the US DoD Space Budget is not all from the DARPA budget either.
It's very hard to tell exactly how much of defence s[pending goes on space because it comes from a number of different pots - some of which are never disclosed. Take a look at the sheer number of DoD launches that take place each year and then compare that to the number of actual NASA launches.
Defence related launches outnumber NASA launches by quite a way.
And guess who is operating the only reusable, winged spacecraft at the moment?
It's very hard to tell exactly how much of defence s[pending goes on space because it comes from a number of different pots - some of which are never disclosed. Take a look at the sheer number of DoD launches that take place each year and then compare that to the number of actual NASA launches.
Defence related launches outnumber NASA launches by quite a way.
And guess who is operating the only reusable, winged spacecraft at the moment?
Eric Mc said:
Not to mention the boys at Kettering Grammar School - who tracked all the Apollo missions under the guidance of their headmaster Geoffrey Perry.
he wasn't the headmaster (thank god)he was head of Physics (and one of my teachers) who just loved to show off about what all the bleeps and whistles from the radio in the corner were all about.
to use the word 'tracked' is pushing it a bit...
Eric Mc said:
I don't find it THAT depressing. It was a project of its time and the world politics that existed at that time. Indeed, the politics that had created it in 1961 were obsolete by 1969 and that is the reason why the project came to a premature end in 1972.
What I DO find depressing is the fact that, at the moment, the US is totally incapable of putting an American into space - let alone put an American on the moon.
It's not just that (manned space flight) though - I get very depressed at the thought that things like the SR 71 and Concorde also have no successors. The Victorians would have been aghast at how we seem too willing to let technology like that die out. What I DO find depressing is the fact that, at the moment, the US is totally incapable of putting an American into space - let alone put an American on the moon.
Greg66 said:
It's not just that (manned space flight) though - I get very depressed at the thought that things like the SR 71 and Concorde also have no successors. The Victorians would have been aghast at how we seem too willing to let technology like that die out.
I agree with you, however if there were a successor to Concorde, it wouldn't matter how fast it was, as you'd still have to get to the airport at least 4 hours ahead of takeoff! Also, the cost of flying on it would mean that realistically it would only be for top-end business users, and Skype/Facetime will always be quicker than the fastest plane.TTwiggy said:
I agree with you, however if there were a successor to Concorde, it wouldn't matter how fast it was, as you'd still have to get to the airport at least 4 hours ahead of takeoff! Also, the cost of flying on it would mean that realistically it would only be for top-end business users, and Skype/Facetime will always be quicker than the fastest plane.
Not the point...UK to aus in <10 hours US worth the effort i would suggest...
Scuffers said:
Not the point...
UK to aus in <10 hours US worth the effort i would suggest...
10 hours? How about less than 4.UK to aus in <10 hours US worth the effort i would suggest...
See http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/about.html
Like to see some of the overseas aid budget used to get this up and running.
Scuffers said:
he wasn't the headmaster (thank god)
he was head of Physics (and one of my teachers) who just loved to show off about what all the bleeps and whistles from the radio in the corner were all about.
to use the word 'tracked' is pushing it a bit...
Being at school in Ireland at the time, the notion that young lads were listening in to Apollo missions was most impressive. To me, Kettering Grammar School was almost as cool as NASA itself.he was head of Physics (and one of my teachers) who just loved to show off about what all the bleeps and whistles from the radio in the corner were all about.
to use the word 'tracked' is pushing it a bit...
Reality is never as good
Greg66 said:
It's not just that (manned space flight) though - I get very depressed at the thought that things like the SR 71 and Concorde also have no successors. The Victorians would have been aghast at how we seem too willing to let technology like that die out.
The SR71 HAS been replaced - by completely different technology.Concorde died because it couldn't sustain commercial operations - and there was no possibility that a second generation supersonic airliner would either.
I'm sure at some point in the future some sort of supersonic civilian aircraft will return to the skies - but it will have to wait until there is a demand and it isn't so costly that it can't make money for its operators or builders.
The Victorians would have clearly understood these factors.
Eric Mc said:
The SR71 HAS been replaced - by completely different technology.
Concorde died because it couldn't sustain commercial operations - and there was no possibility that a second generation supersonic airliner would either.
That's not entirely true though...Concorde died because it couldn't sustain commercial operations - and there was no possibility that a second generation supersonic airliner would either.
BA made good money from it, the problem was that air France couldn't (because they are useless) and airbus basically said it was going concoct BA a shedload for design authority and manufacturers support.
This combined with lack of airspace permits kind of killed it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff