I truly doubt it. After 35 years,we didn;t improve further.

Reply

Some capabilities have gotten better and some have gotten worse. It is not like we have been flying to the moon for 35 years. Sure technology has advanced and we will do a much better job when we go back this time. Who are you responding to anyway. Please give the name of the person you are responding to and quote the most relevant section.

Reply

I believe thats the most redicuas thing in the world........Of course we landed on the moon. How would we beable to keep that under wraps until the last few years? Also, If we didnt why would nasa have launched all the follow up missions? Shoot guys into space repeditively and spend billions to cover up a story.......... I doubt it.

Reply

That's a joke. It has to be. Because any one who would consider that a serious response has got to be a little blind to the times. How can someone in this day and age say that we have not improved any in 35 years?? Boggles my mind.

They used to goto space in rockets that were useless after one trip. Now they are using shuttles which can be reused many times. This is part of the reason why the columbia exploded.. but that is another discussion. Now we are close to sending TOURISTS into space. Have you heard of the X-Prize?

The computers on the old space vehicles are now so far out of date they belong in a museum. Computers are 1000's of times smaller and faster able to control much more of the space craft.

I'll admit, we are still using rockets to get off the earth. That hasn't changed much but everything else about the space craft has. Better materials, better computers, better tools.

 

 

 

Reply

I saw a program about the conspircy over the moon landing. On discovery channel. It was very interesting. I wasn't sure who to agree with. They both have very good reasons. The arguement is over how the humans couldn't survive the extream radiation on the moon or in space. I in the end ended up tied. I couldn't decide who to go with. I'm not sure if we went or not. Its unclear.

Reply

It is actually more expensive in terms of mass to LEO to fly the shuttle then it is to fly many expendable vehicles. This is due to the large amount of labor that needs to be used to prepare the shuttle for each flight. The shuttle is also not fully reusable because it drops its external tank and solid rocket boosters. It is expensive to recover and refurbish the tank. A true reusable lauch vehicle shold be single stage to orbit. It will probably be partly based on hypersonic air breathing technology (scram jet, falcon).

The x prize helped to spur more private investment in aero space technology. However Burt Ruttens space ship one is only a suborbital vehicle. Not only can it not reach orbit but it cannot survive reentry. I would love to take a ride in it but it is only a baby step towards a non government funded space program.


I agree that the computers have gotten better but what does this mean in terms of rockets? It means better control systems. As a consequence longer rockets could be built. However, this does not mean much in terms of performance since the performance of a rocket depends on the mass ratio and the specific impulse.

Reply

I am not talking cost. I am talking about improvement in technology in the last 35 years.


Same as above. I am only mentioning improvements in technology over the last 35 years. Going into space for non-government organizations was unheard of 35 years ago. Yes it is suborbital, but I don't believe it will be much harder to get into outer space.


rather than talk about performance of a rocket, it is better to talk in terms of efficiency. Efficiency takes the mass out of the equation which is a variable that is never constant anyway.

But, I have no idea what the efficiency of todays rockets are compared to 35 years ago. It's like cars, the fundamentals of the technology hasn't changed. But, they have become more efficient with incremental improvements.

Reply

I also wondered why the flag flaping in the moon.
sometime I think it is America government to treat USSR.

Reply

thats a bit an awkward topic i must say lol

Reply

If you would have watched it you would realize that the landing on the moon was a giant hoax. You can see in the movie objects castings shadows in 2 different parts. Is there anyone here who is able to explain that?NASA. There was someone on the documentary representing NASA. He just sad that they landed on the moon. He never sad anything like..guys, objects cast shadows in different parts because... He just sad no not true.

Reply