Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re:  loncrete
Message-ID: <6412@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Feb-86 15:41:58 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6412
Posted: Fri Feb 21 15:41:58 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Feb-86 15:41:58 EST
References: <8602031911.AA16591@ji.berkeley.edu> <6361@utzoo.UUCP>, <855@lanl.ARPA>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 39

> >... 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.  ...
> 
> 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.

Of course, we'd use the Shuttle rather than re-building the Saturn V.
But my comments apply equally to the Lander -- note that the Apollo LM
development was a major pacing element in the whole program -- and the
other pieces of hardware you describe.  None of it exists in any form,
unless the Centaur G-prime would do for the booster (but as far as I
know it isn't man-rated, which is an issue).

> We could go to the moon again in much less than five years if it were
> an important project that got fully funded...

If it were a desperate-priority military project, maybe.  Not otherwise.
Project Apollo needed nearly the full time span between early planning
and Apollo 9 to get the Lunar Module designed and built.  And this was
with much simpler and more flexible management than it would have today.
There is less uncertainty about lunar conditions now, but that only helps
a little.  "much less than five years"!?!  What have you been smoking? :-)
NASA can't get *anything* major built in much less than five years.

> ...  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... it would
> be safer, with modern materials, more subtile and efficient airfoil, etc..

It would also cost many times as much and take longer to develop and test.
Especially if it was done by the government.  That is exactly the problem.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry