50 years of progress in NASA computing systems:
50 Years of progress in NACA/NASA aviation research:
50 years of progress in NASA spaceflight:
It’s sad that there has been so little progress in human spaceflight compared to other fields.
This tragedy will continue as long as Congress forces NASA to continue working on Orion and SLS, instead of building something new like Johnson Space Center’s Nautilus X.
It is simply that there were trillions of dollars to be made through incremental improvements in computers and aviation, but no equivalent trillion dollar market opportunity tied to incremental improvements in space exploration.
Your example is misleading. The two spacecraft are similar due to the physics of atmospheric re-entry. If your goal is constructive criticism, I recommend you select an apt example (and consider proposing a solution to the issue you highlight).
The SR-71 used the same laws of physics as the Wright Brothers. The iPhone uses the same laws of physics as the PDP-8, yet it is vastly more powerful.
NASA has sent hundreds of astronauts into space — only a handful in capsules that splashed down at sea. NASA has actually regressed since the Shuttle program.
At the same time was working on Apollo, the Air Force was building DynaSoar. it was canceled for political reasons,not because of the physics of reentry.
Thanks for your prompt and concise response. Like the SR-71 and iPhone, the technology within an Orion capsule (or CST-100 or Dragon or Cygnus) is vastly more powerful than the technology within it’s predecessor (the Apollo capsule). I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the DynaSoar example, but that technology was resident in the Space Shuttle and, at least in terms of the lifting body, will be carried on via Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser.
Yet, NASA retired the Shuttle to got back to Apollo.
Even if you stick with capsule design, Apollo was not the last word. The Gemini was a third-generation capsule, whose design begin after Apollo (although it was developed faster and flew sooner). It could have gone to the Moon, too, if politics hadn’t interfered. Yet, NASA is going all the way back to Apollo.
Again, with respect to the Apollo, please refer back to my responses concerning the common physics and internal technology differences. If you are a representative of Citizens in Space, I wish your group well. However, I recommend you avoid making poorly-defined and/or unsubstantiated claims as those undermine your technical credibility and do little to promote the progress of human spaceflight. Good luck!
David, please explain what “common physics and internal differences” made the Space Shuttle, DynaSoar, and Gemini impossible.
The idea that Apollo capsules are the only way to go into space is quite bizarre. Do you also think dirigibles are the only way to fly?
I don’t know where you get the notion that Gemini was more advanced than Apollo. Gemini was a glorified Mercury capsule, enlarged just enough for two astronauts rather than one. It was developed from 1961 to 1963. Meanwhile, North American didn’t even start work on the Block II Apollo capsules (the ones that were actually used) until 1964.
Gemini incorporated lessons learned from both Mercury and Apollo. The Mercury capsule was extremely difficult to service because so many systems were crammed inside the pressure vessel. To service one system, technicians often had to remove multiple layers of unrelated systems to get at it. Jim Chamberlin solved that problem. Gemini was designed like a fighter plane. Only the cockpit (which NASA called the “biocapsule”) was pressurized. That not only reduced the weight, it meant that systems located outside the biocapsule could be serviced from outside via removable access plates.
The astronauts considered Gemini to be the best capsule by far.
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/mobile.html
Still don’t understand how a spacecraft designed in 1961 picked up lessons from a spacecraft designed in 1965. As the article you link to notes, “While Gemini was making crews seasick, NASA was building the next generation of spacecraft, one that would fly beyond Earth’s orbit. That too was a stunning accomplishment, but the Apollo craft that would take us to the moon was more of a transport–not the hot and nimble fighter that was the Gusmobile.”
You simply have your dates wrong. The Apollo program was announced on July 28, 1960 — not 1965. As for Apollo Block II, the name should give a clue that it was not the first version off the assembly line.
“Announced” and “designed” are hardly the same thing. North American didn’t get the prime Apollo contract until 1961, didn’t start delivering Apollo capsules until 1965, and didn’t fly any until 1966. The first Geminis were delivered in 1963 and started flying in 1964. Basically, I’d like some reference to support your claim that Gemini was based on Apollo rather than vice-versa. I just find it rather difficult to believe given the chronology.
I never Gemini was “based on Apollo.” Quite the opposite. I said the designers learned from what Apollo was doing and avoided the same mistakes — e.g., the “one big pressure vessel” approach, which added weight and complexity. The Apollo CSM weighed 66,871 lb. The CM alone was 12,807 lb. The complete Gemini weighed 8,490 lb. Gemini L would have been a bit lighter.
If you want to believe the Gemini designers closed their eyes and never saw any Apollo work until 1965, fine. It’s a free country, and you are allowed to believe nonsense. Engineers don’t work that way.
NASA sealed it’s own fate. Did they ever bring a program in ontime in budget. Did they ever hit the recovery / launch budget on the Space Shuttle they committed to at the being of the program? Answer: no to all of the above. I wish I could have had cost plus programs in high tech NASA had.
For the NASA and even the USA there is no progress in compared to to the European ESA, Russia, Japan and special China and India.
The output of the NASA is not enough, if you compare with the input….
The NASA is a to old institution and not flexible….. It is rusted!!!!!
I think one thing which is not mentioned is that, although the last picture looks pretty much the same… the price required to see that thing splash in the ocean is considerably cheaper than the first one… so i guess.. yeah we have not seen radically different technology.. but its Economic advantage should be in the limelight as well nowadays.
What “economic advantage”? Orion/SLS will cost over $2 billion per flight. That’s after tens of billions in development costs.
It strikes me that part of the political problem of funding space exploration is the poor job of really informing the American public and capitalizing all of the technology advances that came as a result of the space program. Ask the average American what the benefits of the space program were and they will likely say Tang. Most people have no idea that the advances in computing, miniaturization, composite materials, digital imaging technologies, memory foam and about 1,700 more applications that are used regularly and have improved our lives.
Only 50 years and change the world.
But is the same net 50 years?
Regards
What we need is something like DreamChaser.
It’s not sad. Some things remain the state of the art for years. And by comparing these two picturers what the common person is comparing is just the physical external shape. I’m sure it’s quite different inside
Historic replicas are often different on the inside. It is sad that NASA’s space program is moving backward, rather than forward, and you consider that normal.
Where there is purpose, there is progress. With the current economy, you would have to have a recognized need for a “Noah’s Ark” or promise of uncovering a new clean energy source.
It is even worse. the SR-71 made its first flight two years before the Apollo capsule and flew until 1998. Since then, no aircraft has flown faster.