Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re:  loncrete
Message-ID: <855@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 12:48:05 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.855
Posted: Fri Feb  7 12:48:05 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 08:41:02 EST
References: <8602031911.AA16591@ji.berkeley.edu> <6361@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 35

In article <6361@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Can someone please explain to me why we can't go to the moon before the
>> year 2000? ... we did it in seven years despite a major tragedy that stopped
>> the program for a year.  Now.  The engineering is done.  The Apollo/Saturn
>> design is proven technology.  Granted the production lines have to be re-tooled
>> to do it, I still can't undertand why we can't go to the Moon again in five
>> years.  Anybody?
>
>Because the engineering was done, but is now GONE.  We could not build a
>Saturn V today:  all the specialized tooling is gone, and so are most of
>the detailed plans and specifications.  We could build something that would
>look a lot like a Saturn V, but the imitation would not be accurate enough
>that we could trust lives to the old calculations and test results... so
>we'd have to start almost from scratch.

Why build another Saturn V at all?  Put a Lunar Lander and Lunar Orbiter
into the Space Shuttle cargo bay.  Next flight - bring up a trans lunar
booster.  Now dock the things together and go to the moon.  This stuff
probably wouldn't even fill the whole cargo bay - even if it were roomier
and more comfortable (and could stay on station longer) than the original
Apollo stuff.

We could go to the moon again in much less than five years if it were
an important project that got fully funded.  And the project would be
safer as well.  We may have discarded all the original designs, but the
engineering techniques were kept and have been further refined since
the sixties.  We could not build a Wright Flier today either, but who
would want to except as a historical exercise?  We could build something
that would look a lot like a Wright Flier, but he imitation would not
be accurate enough that we could fool an aviation historian - it would
be safer, with modern materials, more subtile and efficient airfoil, etc..
Of course, we could do a lot better by starting from scratch.

J. Giles
Los Alamos