As someone that grew up in awe of the Apollo program (my dad was one of the engineers on the LEM)... this is sad. They actually said they want to update the apollo technology... OMFG. They looked at these companies because of their involvement in the Apollo program... EVERYONE is retired from that age, most of the senior guys are dead.
Why on earth would you want to update that old technology... Ok, maybe rocket nozzle design hasn't changed much, but it's like deciding we want a new transcontinental aircraft and so we are going to hire the team that built the Junkers from the last century... just update the props and throw a LCD screen in it and charge a few billion... Should be looking at companies like SpaceX that are using cost effective designs, although it's gaurantee'd they wouldn't go there since the owner has stated one of his goals is to put NASA out of business.
They don't even have the people anymore that know how or why it worked, it's all in propietary systems that you can't even get parts for anymore. I had some of those chips... think they are going to go with 1kx4 ram chips again? It was the stone age of the computer world, the design work was mostly done on slide rules... I should know I still have one of them.
I think it's a recipe for failure (well gauranteed weak performance, overpriced, assured delays... that sort of thing and congress will probably pull the plug on it in a few years), should have put out a bid with what they want to accomplish and limited constrains on design and let the companies have at it. Seems like they are just putting out a pork project for an aerospace company with strong pull.
Originally posted by Scott-Wa: They don't even have the people anymore that know how or why it worked, it's all in propietary systems that you can't even get parts for anymore. I had some of those chips... think they are going to go with 1kx4 ram chips again? It was the stone age of the computer world, the design work was mostly done on slide rules... I should know I still have one of them.
I think it's a recipe for failure (well gauranteed weak performance, overpriced, assured delays... that sort of thing and congress will probably pull the plug on it in a few years), should have put out a bid with what they want to accomplish and limited constrains on design and let the companies have at it. Seems like they are just putting out a pork project for an aerospace company with strong pull.
Something tells me you won't see much Apollo era electronics on board. (duh) But electronics aside, the basic vehicle design is sound and the engine designs were very reliable. Use what works well, and update it with modern tech.
Why do we still use aircraft today? Didn't Orville and Wilbur use a propeller driven craft with wings to fly way back in 1903? Gee, why would you build a new airplane with wings and a propeller? They didn't even HAVE computers back then.
IP: Logged
05:27 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
As someone that grew up in awe of the Apollo program (my dad was one of the engineers on the LEM)... this is sad. They actually said they want to update the apollo technology... OMFG. They looked at these companies because of their involvement in the Apollo program... EVERYONE is retired from that age, most of the senior guys are dead.
Why on earth would you want to update that old technology... Ok, maybe rocket nozzle design hasn't changed much, but it's like deciding we want a new transcontinental aircraft and so we are going to hire the team that built the Junkers from the last century... just update the props and throw a LCD screen in it and charge a few billion... Should be looking at companies like SpaceX that are using cost effective designs, although it's gaurantee'd they wouldn't go there since the owner has stated one of his goals is to put NASA out of business.
"The SpaceX five and nine engine architectures are improved versions of those employed by the Saturn V and Saturn I rockets of the Apollo Program, which had flawless flight records despite losing engines on a number of missions." http://www.spacex.com/
Why aren't you blasting SpaceX for using "that old technology?"
IP: Logged
05:40 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35864 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
