Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that "Stormin Mormon"
on or about Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:50:51 -0400 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: I'd like to think that the technology from the moon shot is probably still out there. The various wisdom needed to manufacture rockets is likely archived in a government building, stored safely on IBM punch cards. To use an expression "It ain't rocket science. Even rocket science isn't rocket science!" We're still making rockets. We still have the plans. Setting up the production lines will take some doing. Mostly it will take Will, political and otherwise. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
#162
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that cavelamb ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" on
or about Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:45:55 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On 4/6/2010 4:58 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: Should we go back? I'm all for everything you said, pytor. All I'm trying to point out is that the 1970's technology that took us to the moon - has been lost. We don't _have_ that capability any more. And without it, Mars is just another bright dot in the sky. We do have the capacity. Shuttle B, Ares (the next heavy booster) - not impossible. What we are losing is the human capital. Not just the engineering geeks who did Apollo, or the Shuttle, but those who wanted to see it happen. And, sad to say, the Obamacare bill means there will be no money for any such projects. The progressives are killing the dreams for the future. It's is the base technology needed for any further exploration. Have you figured out the trip time that comes along with that minimum delta-V profile? For how many people? Zubrin figures he can put four people on Mars with 180 days travel time, have them work on the planet for 550 days and then return for another 180 days. Yeah it is a long assignment. So??? The Hab they worked out at about 1083 sq ft - about the size of a double wide. "Cozy" but not impossible. And remember, these are guys - give them a room and an Internet hookup, they'll be fine. B-) Coming back, they'll be reviewing the data they collected. And making plans. To use another old saying "The world was explored by iron men and wooden ships." Now we have iron ships and wooden men. If we can't live comfortably on the moon for that long, how can we expect to survive and interplanetary trip? And come back! There's a difference between traveling to the Moon, where you have to haul everything, and going to Mars. Which does have exploitable resources. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
#163
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Let the Record show that cavelamb ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" on
or about Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:35:54 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On 4/6/2010 8:52 PM, John R. Carroll wrote: cavelamb"""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net wrote: On 4/6/2010 4:58 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: Should we go back? I'm all for everything you said, pytor. All I'm trying to point out is that the 1970's technology that took us to the moon - has been lost. Not just yet it hasn't. We don't _have_ that capability any more. Sure we do, or we could build it. No, John, respectfully, it's gone. The tooling to build Saturn Vs was broken up decades ago. The people who could do it - gone to ground, retired, or long dead. ALL of that will have to be re-invented. Not reinvented, re-engineered. Crazy friend and I decided that what we wanted to do was build a Ju88 - in titanium. Okay, this was real pie in the wild sky stuff, but our main point is that it would be lighter than the original, and - the design was proven. The same goes for boosters. Re-engineering a set of boosters is not that hard a project. Remember, the US built a manned mission to the Moon "from the ground up" in something like 8 years. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo; Teflon, Tang and the rest - and all those lessons are learned. So it is not like we'd have to reinvent everything. Re-engineer, of course. Hells bells, the shuttle is 70s technology! has nothing been done in 40 years in materials technology which might improve upon that design? Is that the best design that was available, anyway? With cad systems, it would not be "difficult". Get it out of the Government cost plus procurement process and it is even more feasible. Hells bells, Paul Allen spent 25 million to make a private reusable rocket, in order to win a $10 million dollar prize. Virgin Galactic is working to make a seven man passenger space ship - and they are not using Apollo technology. Now, that said, to make the Mars Direct project viable it will need heavy boosters. Those designs are on the books - Enregia from Russia, the Ares next generation booster for NASA. There may be more. I can also see some place like Brazil deciding to get into the business too. And India and China both have the potential for such a project. And - if you can't lift to the moon (which is where I came in), how the hell do you lift to Mars??? In terms of delta-V (the amount of velocity you have to change) it is actually farther to the Moon's surface, than to Mars, by about a third. Going to Mars via the moon is like flying from LA to Hawaii by way of Sacramento, Mexico. Not only is it out of your way, but from what I can tell, you'll probably have to haul your fuel with you, as there doesn't seem to be an airport. Zubrin figures two launches a year: the first one with the on site fuel and Oxygen plant, with the Earth Return Vehicle, the second with the Habitat and exploration vehicles. Yeah, I'm pumped for the Mar Direct program. Yes, it will cost a lot of money. Even for the Feds, 20 billion is not insignificant. (Or it used to not be, but ... ) it can be done. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
#164
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Somewhere, there are probably a couple old guys who remember how. If they get thier daily Metamucil and fed properly, with plenty of naps. They could probably direct another missile shot. I built a new coax design two years ago. With modern equipment and an improved design, it developed 30 percent more thrust and because it had been designed on a computer, we were able to eliminate the acustic chamber needed on the original. That alone reduced the weight by half. Believe me, during the entitre build I was thinking about how some guy on a manual Jig Bore had done what we were doing on a 5 axis milling machine. They went through a lot of set up parts in the old days. -- John R. Carroll |
#165
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
pyotr filipivich wrote in
: Yeah, I'm pumped for the Mar Direct program. Yes, it will cost a lot of money. Even for the Feds, 20 billion is not insignificant. (Or it used to not be, but ... ) it can be done. $20B?? Nobama blew more than that in his first 6 months in office just on vote- buying schemes! |
#166
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Eregon on 07 Apr 2010 17:07:01 GMT typed in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following: pyotr filipivich wrote in Yeah, I'm pumped for the Mar Direct program. Yes, it will cost a lot of money. Even for the Feds, 20 billion is not insignificant. (Or it used to not be, but ... ) it can be done. $20B?? Nobama blew more than that in his first 6 months in office just on vote- buying schemes! Which tells you where we can hide the money. Just put it in "Extraordinary Community Organizing" and the Progressives will never question it. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
#167
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Oddly enough, I still have a couple slide rules. And know
how to do some simple functions on them. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "cavelamb" ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote in message m... It was all done with slide rules... -- Richard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ |
#168
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
If you have good programming, and good data.... otherwise,
you don't get much that's useful. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... I built a new coax design two years ago. With modern equipment and an improved design, it developed 30 percent more thrust and because it had been designed on a computer, we were able to eliminate the acustic chamber needed on the original. That alone reduced the weight by half. Believe me, during the entitre build I was thinking about how some guy on a manual Jig Bore had done what we were doing on a 5 axis milling machine. They went through a lot of set up parts in the old days. -- John R. Carroll |
#169
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"John R. Carroll" wrote:
I built a new coax design two years ago. With modern equipment and an improved design, it developed 30 percent more thrust and because it had been designed on a computer, we were able to eliminate the acustic chamber needed on the original. That alone reduced the weight by half. I have a feeling we still know how to lift things into space. We launch satellites, we work on systems to take out abm's and a year or so ago, we demonstrated a quick and dirty ASAT weapon to take out a falling satellite. I still think that was a shot across the bows to any nation that thought we couldn't back up our words. We can still build launch vehicals. Believe me, during the entitre build I was thinking about how some guy on a manual Jig Bore had done what we were doing on a 5 axis milling machine. They went through a lot of set up parts in the old days. A whole lot of fixturing isn't needed now due to CNC. I wonder if the desire to put a man on the moon for the first time was made by our current President, given our current state of technology if it would have taken even half the time from when JFK made his statement? The only think I believe would cloud or hamper progress is the quicksand of federal regs impeding progress of all sorts of projects. The Pentagon was inhabited in 11 months, finished in 17 months. Could we get an enviromental impact study and the lawsuits settled in 17 months now? Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller |
#170
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
What I see is that Republicans are criticizing President Obama for not
funding the Mars mission. And if Obama was funding the Mars mission, then Republicans would be criticizing Obama for funding it. i |
#171
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
On 4/7/2010 7:06 PM, Wes wrote:
I wonder if the desire to put a man on the moon for the first time was made by our current President, given our current state of technology if it would have taken even half the time from when JFK made his statement? The only think I believe would cloud or hamper progress is the quicksand of federal regs impeding progress of all sorts of projects. Wes I dunno, Wes. I'm calling carts and horses. We probably wouldn't have the current technology without the man-on-the-moon program of the 1960s. -- Richard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ |
#172
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
On 4/7/2010 7:28 PM, Ignoramus8052 wrote:
What I see is that Republicans are criticizing President Obama for not funding the Mars mission. And if Obama was funding the Mars mission, then Republicans would be criticizing Obama for funding it. i Iggy, you have GOT to get your mind out of that gutter. It will ruin your life! -- Richard Lamb http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/ |
#173
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
cavelamb ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote:
We probably wouldn't have the current technology without the man-on-the-moon program of the 1960s. Point taken. |
#174
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Wes wrote:
cavelamb ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" wrote: We probably wouldn't have the current technology without the man-on-the-moon program of the 1960s. Point taken. Most of the current computer tech. was driven by the oil, automotive and commercial/military aircraft industries not to mention your friendly weatherman. -- John R. Carroll |
#175
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Ignoramus8052 wrote:
What I see is that Republicans are criticizing President Obama for not funding the Mars mission. And if Obama was funding the Mars mission, then Republicans would be criticizing Obama for funding it. Were Obama to decide to fund a Mars mission, Orly Taitz, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin would be asking the Martian's to produce Obama's birth certificate. Either that or they'd just be claiming he was a Martian. LOL -- John R. Carroll |
#176
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
On Apr 8, 7:40*am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Most of the current computer tech. was driven by the oil, automotive and commercial/military aircraft industries not to mention your friendly weatherman. -- John R. Carroll And that is the truth. I know a guy that was a draftsman when they were designing the recovery parachute for the space shuttle boosters. I told him about Kevlar which was new at the time. When he suggested that they consider kevlar for part of the recovery parachute, they refused to consider it because there was no mil spec for kevlar at the time. The launch computers for the Apollo program were RCA 110A's. Developed by RCA for controlling oil well drilling rigs but modified by adding more memory. Dan |
#177
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
|
#178
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 03:47:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote: Ignoramus8052 wrote: What I see is that Republicans are criticizing President Obama for not funding the Mars mission. And if Obama was funding the Mars mission, then Republicans would be criticizing Obama for funding it. Were Obama to decide to fund a Mars mission, Orly Taitz, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin would be asking the Martian's to produce Obama's birth certificate. Either that or they'd just be claiming he was a Martian. If Obama were to back a Mars mission, and still can't produce a valid US birth certificate, the only logical conclusion would be he's "The Man Who Fell to Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man...rth_%28film%29 -- Ned Simmons |
#179
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
" fired this volley in news:72f9470e- : The launch computers for the Apollo program were RCA 110A's. I OWNED the last launch control computer for the Apollo program. It was a Systems Engineering Labs 840A (SEL-840). "Systems Engineering Laboratories was founded in Fort Lauderdale, Florida in 1958 by nine engineers from Radiation, Inc., of Melbourne, Florida, at the beginning of the breakout of minicomputers from 16-bit to larger architectures. Their original product was based on a patent for sampling low-level analog signals. A number of data acquisition and control systems (which included no computers) were built for NASA installations." That's from Wiki. -- John R. Carroll |
#180
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"John R. Carroll" fired this volley in
: A number of data acquisition and control systems (which included no computers) were built for NASA installations." Hmmm... that's odd. I bought it at the cape at an auction. It was specifically listed as "Apollo launch control 'system'". I can assure you it wasn't a data-acquisition system. It really was a full-up computer. LLoyd |
#181
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"John R. Carroll" fired this volley in
: You probably got the whole mess from all of the suppliers. Cool toy! It was. It had experienced a "power supply catastrophe", which in NASA parlance is, "it got smoked". A friend and I got it working, learning a HELL of a lot in the practice, then sold it off for gold (70u plating on ALL 200K+ pins!!) and over 3 tons of aluminum. Traded off the working tape drives for other "cool toys" of the time. LLoyd |
#182
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
In article ,
Wes wrote: I wonder if the desire to put a man on the moon for the first time was made by our current President, given our current state of technology if it would have taken even half the time from when JFK made his statement? The only think I believe would cloud or hamper progress is the quicksand of federal regs impeding progress of all sorts of projects. The Pentagon was inhabited in 11 months, finished in 17 months. Could we get an enviromental impact study and the lawsuits settled in 17 months now? Regulations my ass. In the present state of disfunction, if the current president proposed it, the Republicans would do everything in their power to block it, and if the last president had proposed it, the Democrats would do everything in their power to block it. The country can't get sh*t done because blocking the other side has become more important than doing anything useful, to both sides, and any third side remains too small to do anything useful. And Nth to the "without the moon program (or more properly, 60's aerospace in general) most of the toys that make things faster/easier today would not exist." The Air Force & DARPA (or some DARPA ancestor) had a huge amount to do with the development of CNC machining, from what I have read. Much more to make airfoils/spars than spacecraft. -- Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by |
#183
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"John R. Carroll" fired this volley in : A number of data acquisition and control systems (which included no computers) were built for NASA installations." Hmmm... that's odd. I bought it at the cape at an auction. It was specifically listed as "Apollo launch control 'system'". I can assure you it wasn't a data-acquisition system. It really was a full-up computer. You probably got the whole mess from all of the suppliers. Cool toy! -- John R. Carroll |
#184
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"John R. Carroll" fired this volley in
news What I read about your purchase indicated that the entire thing was a wire wrap. All wire-wrap. Big 0.15 x .032 pins, too. Not the .025 Augat style. LLoyd |
#185
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
On 4/8/2010 1:31 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"John R. fired this volley in : A number of data acquisition and control systems (which included no computers) were built for NASA installations." Hmmm... that's odd. I bought it at the cape at an auction. It was specifically listed as "Apollo launch control 'system'". I can assure you it wasn't a data-acquisition system. It really was a full-up computer. LLoyd Long, long ago I worked for EAI, a manufacturer of analog/hybrid simulation computers. EAI was one of SEL's best customers (many EAI computers used SELs for the digital piece). I can state that EAI shipped many computers to NASA, and some of those computers contained SEL machines. A SEL 32/55 was in the first computer (that I am aware of) sold to China by a US company. It was a dual console 7800 system, similar to the moon landing simulator. As a DoS condition of the sale, we had to use an obsolete digital (the 32/55) and lengthen the access times on the hard disks. The computer was sold for "design of electric motors and agricultural purposes". It was delivered to Harbin, next to the air base. Kevin Gallimore |
#186
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
"John R. Carroll" fired this volley in : You probably got the whole mess from all of the suppliers. Cool toy! It was. It had experienced a "power supply catastrophe", which in NASA parlance is, "it got smoked". Letting the smoke out of anything electronic is a bad thing. Getting it back in can be problematic. LOL A friend and I got it working, learning a HELL of a lot in the practice, then sold it off for gold (70u plating on ALL 200K+ pins!!) and over 3 tons of aluminum. Traded off the working tape drives for other "cool toys" of the time. You must have been a real handful as a kid. What I read about your purchase indicated that the entire thing was a wire wrap. My first real experience was with PDP's and then Gene Amdahl's stuff - a 460 Mk II. One was installed for use, one was a backup, and the third was for parts in case the Amdahl went tits up. -- John R. Carroll |
#187
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
Ecnerwal wrote:
Regulations my ass. In the present state of disfunction, if the current president proposed it, the Republicans would do everything in their power to block it, and if the last president had proposed it, the Democrats would do everything in their power to block it. The country can't get sh*t done because blocking the other side has become more important than doing anything useful, to both sides, and any third side remains too small to do anything useful. Yeah, that constitutional thing about "checks and balances" is a bitch, ain't it? Comrade technomaNge -- Due to anticipated high turnout in 2010's election, the Electorial College has scheduled: Nov. 1, 2010 All Independents vote. Nov. 2, 2010 All Republicans vote. Nov. 3, 2010 All Democrats vote. |
#188
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On 2010-04-07, cavelamb "" wrote:
On 4/6/2010 10:50 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote: I'd like to think that the technology from the moon shot is probably still out there. The various wisdom needed to manufacture rockets is likely archived in a government building, stored safely on IBM punch cards. It was all done with slide rules... And how many machines still can read the punched cards today? They were being phased out of computer centers twenty or more years ago. Same problem with a lot of tape formats. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#189
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
On 2010-04-08, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
"John R. Carroll" fired this volley in : A number of data acquisition and control systems (which included no computers) were built for NASA installations." Hmmm... that's odd. I bought it at the cape at an auction. It was specifically listed as "Apollo launch control 'system'". I can assure you it wasn't a data-acquisition system. It really was a full-up computer. Having worked for an Army R&D lab for many years, I have seen many computers described as "data acquisition controllers" and other similar things when if you called it a "computer", you would have to go through reams of extra documentation and justification -- and *still* might not get it. IIRC -- there was even an IBM 360 acquired under some masking nomenclature. NASA was government, and probably had to deal with similar problems. :-) Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#190
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in
: And how many machines still can read the punched cards today? They were being phased out of computer centers twenty or more years ago. Same problem with a lot of tape formats. 10 years ago (or thereabouts) a meeting was held at our data center to discuss matters dealing with a lawsuit being brought by one of the Unions. It was explained to the plaintif's lawyer that we had changed computer systems during the period between the time of the meeting and the time that the litigation was concerned with and that we had no way to read - much less reload - the programming and data that they sought although the System Save tapes were still in storage as mandated by state law. Frustrated, the plaintif's lawyer asked why we still preserved the tapes even though our current system couldn't use them. My response was "The Law says that we have to keep them but doesn't say that we have to be able to read them." The defense's lawyer cracked up and the plaintif's lawyer stormed out. grin |
#191
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduringdesign
On Apr 8, 1:31*pm, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote: "John R. Carroll" fired this volley om: A number of data acquisition and control systems (which included no computers) were built for NASA installations." Hmmm... that's odd. *I bought it at the cape at an auction. *It was specifically listed as "Apollo launch control 'system'". I can assure you it wasn't a data-acquisition system. *It really was a full-up computer. LLoyd I have no doubt that it was a full up computer. And can easily believe it was sold as an " Apollo launch control ' system ' ". But the RCA 110A computers were the launch computers. They had no integrated circuits and were bigger at least physically. They were also 24 bit machines. As I recall they had 8 banks of 8K words. Dan |
#192
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
|
#193
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
cavelamb ""cavelamb\"@ X earthlink.net" on Wed, 07 Apr 2010 22:03:34
-0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On 4/7/2010 7:06 PM, Wes wrote: I wonder if the desire to put a man on the moon for the first time was made by our current President, given our current state of technology if it would have taken even half the time from when JFK made his statement? The only think I believe would cloud or hamper progress is the quicksand of federal regs impeding progress of all sorts of projects. I dunno, Wes. I'm calling carts and horses. We probably wouldn't have the current technology without the man-on-the-moon program of the 1960s. Possibly, but some things have been driven by civilian application - computers is one area. Carbon Fibers? I suspect that a lot of technologies got a big boost from the government "investment" in them. I'm also sure a lot of data freely available to a private space program was first worked up by NASA in the moon race project. And let us not forget, that determining that something _won't_ work, is just as useful as merely determining what will work. tschus pyotr - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
#194
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Future Space programs Anniversary of an amazingly enduring design
"DoN. Nichols" on 9 Apr 2010 05:10:32 GMT typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On 2010-04-07, cavelamb "" wrote: On 4/6/2010 10:50 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote: I'd like to think that the technology from the moon shot is probably still out there. The various wisdom needed to manufacture rockets is likely archived in a government building, stored safely on IBM punch cards. It was all done with slide rules... And how many machines still can read the punched cards today? They were being phased out of computer centers twenty or more years ago. Same problem with a lot of tape formats. Time to rummage around in the techno geek museums, hobbyist basements, and possibly even some third world government IT departments. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|