Asteroid mining

[Kshartle]

What technogical acheivment from 45 years ago is not relatively simple now?

1969 was 45 years ago.  I think there was technological achievement that year that is not relatively simple now - and will not likely be duplicated for some time.

I assume you're talking about the moon landing, which my post was referring to.

Can you name any other?

[Mark Leavy]

I assume you're talking about the moon landing, which my post was referring to.

Can you name any other?

My apologies Kshartle, I misread your earlier comment.

Interesting question, though.  Off the top of my head:

The Panama Canal
Manhattan Project
Hoover Dam
Interstate Freeway System
New Orleans Levees
The Roman Aqueducts
Tesla's Resonant Earth Transmitter

I don't believe that the US could accomplish any one of these today.  Or anything similar in complexity and size and speed.

[WildAboutHarry]

Interesting question, though.  Off the top of my head:

The Panama Canal
Manhattan Project
Hoover Dam
Interstate Freeway System
New Orleans Levees
The Roman Aqueducts
Tesla's Resonant Earth Transmitter

I don't believe that the US could accomplish any one of these today.  Or anything similar in complexity and size and speed.

Interesting list.  I would add the California Aqueduct and the whole Central Valley Project, the Columbia Basin Project (Grand Coulee Dam, etc.).

I think there is a distinction between the things you mention and the moon landing, though (although the Manhattan Project may be the most similar).  Most of the things on your list are relatively easy from a technical standpoint but not from a regulatory standpoint.  In other words, today we have the ability but not the will to do an interstate highway system, levees, dams, etc.  The environmental compliance alone would kill most of these things.

If we decided we had to land a person on the moon ASAP (and, of course, bring them back), it would take a decade or more to pull that off, I think.  Even though in some respects it would probably be easier than in 1969, simply because of improved computer technology.  But still extraordinarily difficult.

[Kshartle]

Interesting question, though.  Off the top of my head:

The Panama Canal
Manhattan Project
Hoover Dam
Interstate Freeway System
New Orleans Levees
The Roman Aqueducts
Tesla's Resonant Earth Transmitter

I don't believe that the US could accomplish any one of these today.  Or anything similar in complexity and size and speed.

Interesting list.  I would add the California Aqueduct and the whole Central Valley Project, the Columbia Basin Project (Grand Coulee Dam, etc.).

I think there is a distinction between the things you mention and the moon landing, though (although the Manhattan Project may be the most similar).  Most of the things on your list are relatively easy from a technical standpoint but not from a regulatory standpoint.  In other words, today we have the ability but not the will to do an interstate highway system, levees, dams, etc.  The environmental compliance alone would kill most of these things.

If we decided we had to land a person on the moon ASAP (and, of course, bring them back), it would take a decade or more to pull that off, I think.  Even though in some respects it would probably be easier than in 1969, simply because of improved computer technology.  But still extraordinarily difficult.

I'm sure meticulous records were taken on everything involved in the first landing. Even a complete recreation should only take a fraction of the time and no doubt lessons learned in the decades that followed would mean lots of riskless, low-cost improvements.

I work for a major Areospace company. If it takes 3 years and 10 million to build a prototype unit (with 5 million additional risk from the get-go), we can build 5 engineering model test units for 10 million in the next 18 months (even with additional scope and requirements). After the EM units and we move onto flight we can crank out 20 units for 10 million in 12 months, all ready to shoot into space.

With technology, the difficulty and cost is in getting it to work the first time. That is 95% of the problem solved. After that it gets vastly less expensive and very quick since you've got the blueprints and don't have to develop and test theory/procedures/integrate systems etc.

It makes no sense that a moon landing would be acheivable 45 years ago and not be relatively simple now. At least it makes no sense to me. If anyone subscribes to the theory that it's as difficult or nearly as difficult now can you explain why perhaps?

[Mark Leavy]

It makes no sense that a moon landing would be acheivable 45 years ago and not be relatively simple now. At least it makes no sense to me. If anyone subscribes to the theory that it's as difficult or nearly as difficult now can you explain why perhaps?

I'll take a shot.

The process of getting to the moon began about 20 years before the first manned moon landing.
Newtonian Physics and Planetary motion were well understood 200 years before that.  A decade or so before that, WWII refined rocket technology.  What happened in the 50's and 60s was the development of the culture and ecosystem that would support such a project.

The science as written in the books is not nearly enough to pull off a manned space launch.  20 years to grow a Master engineer or scientist.  A handful of Journeyman engineers and scientists.  A plethora of a apprentices.

Add to that the moneymen, the political supporters, the logisticians, the communications infrastructure, the incubation of specialized suppliers...  And the list could go on.  Private personal relationships between scientists and lunches over beer between governmental agencies.  Friends you knew that you could trust with your life and that you knew had dealt with the same problems you had.

All of that eco-system withered away over the last few decades.  Yes, there are still a few old no bullshit masters around - but it is no more than the last speakers of a dying language.

Today, to rebuild that entire ecosystem would take no less than 10 years.  The knowledge in the white papers don't contain the 20 years of experience (technology, deal brokering, PR, materials providers, vendors, etc.)  Any new attempt would require between 3 and 10 trial efforts of increasing complexity before you had a strong enough foundation behind you to really go for the moon.  There would be new geniuses, new journeymen, new apprentices.  New political relationships.  New vendors incubated.

The effort would be equal or greater than the original attempt.

Something completely different - and equally novel and wonderful might be pulled off by one of the private space endeavors.  Even today, though, with most of them having 5+ years of startup history, I think they are all ~10 years away from a manned moon landing.

[WildAboutHarry]

It makes no sense that a moon landing would be acheivable 45 years ago and not be relatively simple now. At least it makes no sense to me. If anyone subscribes to the theory that it's as difficult or nearly as difficult now can you explain why perhaps?

I don't know much about the Boeing 787, except that it took a long time from drawing board (or whatever they use today  ) to commercial service, and that for something that only extends a relatively well known technology.  The California "High-Speed" rail authority has been able to plan only the Bakersfield to Fresno run at sub "high-speeds" after something like six years following the passage of the initiative (the high-speed rail authority was established in the mid-1990s).  Keystone pipeline, et al.  It is extraordinarily difficult these days to muster the social/technological will to quickly do anything complex.

The advantage we have today is that we know a moon landing (and return) can be done.  And the technology has improved.  However, there are no off-the-shelf parts for that effort, we cannot simply crib together a vehicle capable of achieving that.  Could you build a Saturn V-type booster today?  Sure, but it would take time to design, tool up, etc.  I will second what Mark said.  The "ecology" of the space program, as it existed in the 1960, no longer exists.  All I am saying is that to reassemble that would take time, on the order of a decade or more.

[Kshartle]

Ok well you guys are talking about social stuff (political will, etc.) not the actual technology.

It's like saying we would have just as tough a time building the pyramids as Kufu did, because nowadays no one would waste such massive rescources on a tomb.

Technolgically with modern transportation, logistics, computers, construction equipment etc, building the pyramids would be relatively simple.

It's the same with the moon landing. We have better technology and since it's already been done the theoretical problems have already been solved. It's just a matter of recreating what's already been done. replication is exponentialy easier than creation.

Socialism has bankrupted the country making projects like this unpaltable but that's different from saying it's more or as difficult.

I hear you about gathering the team together. The pool of scientists and engineers might be smaller now here in the US but dog gone they've supposedly got the problems solved right? They haven't thrown away the blueprints right? It's called build to print and it's unbelievably simple compared to developement and testing.

[Kshartle]

when we went to the moon we had a get it done, merit based system for organizing and putting the best men in the places they were needed, i think the biggest hurdle a modern attempt would face is the cronyism, political leveraging, and the entrenched bureaucrat based way we try to do stuff today, Hillary would have to place some of her key people in charge to position them for her run for office, Obama would hire some incompetent Canadian company run by some school chum of his wife, the bureaucrats in every regulatory agency would create a ton of new regulations so they can fatten there budgets by making themselves responsible for over site and the company's who get the contracts would be hired based on political donations and their support of pet causes instead of the quality and cost effectiveness of their product (or the republican equivalents if you are imagining this being done under a republican leadership). 
  i wouldn't want to fly in a rocket made this way.... scary....

So basically it would be like every other government project? It would have to be a government project because it appears to be a huge waste of money.

They are actually pretty careful with the rockets, they are just amaizingly expensive.

[WildAboutHarry]

[quote=Kshartle]Ok well you guys are talking about social stuff (political will, etc.) not the actual technology. [/quote]

In part.  But the Apollo project was first about political will.  Basically the space program was the equivalent of war with the USSR to succeed in space, with the ultimate goal in the moon mission.  We already had some of the technological part (rockets and such, although we didn't have many successes early on).  It was the question of applying existing technology, developing new technology, and solving the problem.

The 787 was more a pure technological challenge, with only minor political meddling.  Complex technology always costs more and takes longer than expected.

[MachineGhost]

I don't believe that the US could accomplish any one of these today.  Or anything similar in complexity and size and speed.

Don't forget Pennsylvania Station.  That was the last great project.  And it was torn down anyway.

[MachineGhost]

It makes no sense that a moon landing would be acheivable 45 years ago and not be relatively simple now. At least it makes no sense to me. If anyone subscribes to the theory that it's as difficult or nearly as difficult now can you explain why perhaps?

If we had to rely on Cheap Chinese Shit, we wouldn't make it to the moon.  That's the difference between now and 45 years ago; crappier reliability.

[Pointedstick]

If we had to rely on Cheap Chinese Shit, we wouldn't make it to the moon.  That's the difference between now and 45 years ago; crappier reliability.

I was just in a house with an oil-fired furnace from 1977 (!!!!). American-made, of course. The damn thing looks practically brand new, too. Of course, only about 60% of the heat it generates goes into the ductwork (!!!!) and heating oil prices are astronomically high. But damn if it doesn't seem like it's going to last into the next millennium.

[MachineGhost]

In part.  But the Apollo project was first about political will.  Basically the space program was the equivalent of war with the USSR to succeed in space, with the ultimate goal in the moon mission.  We already had some of the technological part (rockets and such, although we didn't have many successes early on).  It was the question of applying existing technology, developing new technology, and solving the problem.

A rocket and ship to the moon was simply not possible without the planar transistor which took a radical act against "lifelong corporate employment" in the 60's to come about.  So the technology had to first exist for the moonshot to be possible.  It's one of the very few things government is good at, inducing technological innovation in the private sector through its demand.  The pre-larval of Intel would simply not exist without the Space Race because NASA funding supported it during its early years.