PDA

View Full Version : Projects canceled because of Apollo



CesarAKG
2009-Aug-27, 09:21 PM
Is it true that, because of the Apollo Project, some projects create space colonies on the Moon and Mars were canceled, to try and send a man to the Moon till the end of the 1960s?

Sorry for the "engrish".

Argos
2009-Aug-27, 09:31 PM
Hmm, I donīt think so. Anyway, in order to colonize the Moon you had to send people there first [let alone Mars].

KaiYeves
2009-Aug-28, 12:03 AM
They did put plans for a space station on hold because of Apollo.

slang
2009-Aug-28, 07:12 AM
I suppose it would be possible that some brainstorming/research projects lost funding due to Apollo. It seems nonsense to have a serious project for colonizing the moon when NASA was just getting the hang of getting people in orbit. Why do you ask?

CesarAKG
2009-Aug-28, 07:30 AM
I suppose it would be possible that some brainstorming/research projects lost funding due to Apollo. It seems nonsense to have a serious project for colonizing the moon when NASA was just getting the hang of getting people in orbit. Why do you ask?

I read it somewhere some time ago. Something about the original purpose of Mercury Project as a preparation for a further program to go to the Moon and Mars, and that the original ideas from NASA where not to be the first on Moon, but to have a colony there, and on Mars too. I can't recall the origin of it.

CesarAKG
2009-Aug-28, 07:39 AM
OK, there's another implicit question: "Where would we be today if there was not the space race to go to the Moon in 1960s?" The space race was won in 1969 with Apollo 11, but it also killed the Moon exploration projects, as people lost interest on it just after the return of the astronauts (how many of the "Joe Sixpack" does know about the other 6 manned missions to the Moon? Most of them thinks that there where only one).

Gillianren
2009-Aug-28, 07:46 AM
I read it somewhere some time ago. Something about the original purpose of Mercury Project as a preparation for a further program to go to the Moon and Mars, and that the original ideas from NASA where not to be the first on Moon, but to have a colony there, and on Mars too. I can't recall the origin of it.

Blame Nixon, then, and not Apollo. He gave up focus on the Moon for focus on what would become the Space Shuttle. As has been pointed out, there's no way a Moon colony could have been done without a Moon landing first.

slang
2009-Aug-28, 07:46 AM
I can't help you with that, but I'll give you a website where you may find it. I have read some documents there on other projects that were very detailed about how and why the they got started, and what consequences were. Browser around, there's a lot of documentation there. Do report back if you find the colonization project(s)! :)

http://history.nasa.gov/

kucharek
2009-Aug-28, 07:53 AM
Originally, NASA had more long term plans, building a more sustainable infrastructure - as they now try again with Constellation. Then came Kennedy, asking for a crash program, which killed the long term plans. Whatif history is always difficult. Maybe without the race, we would have gotten to the moon later, but maybe we would still be there and maybe even to mars.
If I remember correctly, in Michener's "Space" some guy elaborates on why Apollo is stupid because it will bring two men to the moon and that's it.

CesarAKG
2009-Aug-28, 08:03 AM
Blame Nixon, then, and not Apollo. He gave up focus on the Moon for focus on what would become the Space Shuttle. As has been pointed out, there's no way a Moon colony could have been done without a Moon landing first.

It's not about the necessary steps, but the timing, pace, costs, and final objectives. Kennedy put one objective in space and time: Moon, till the end of 1960s. Any project that has a slower pace and a further objective would have to be cancelled or put on hold. So, if the original objective was to put a team on the Moon by the end of 1970s, with the objective of making a lunar colony, and a colony on Mars by the end of the 1990s...

CesarAKG
2009-Aug-28, 08:17 AM
Projects outside of NASA:

Project Horizon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Horizon
Project Lunex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunex_Project

Van Rijn
2009-Aug-28, 08:21 AM
It's not about the necessary steps, but the timing, pace, costs, and final objectives. Kennedy put one objective in space and time: Moon, till the end of 1960s. Any project that has a slower pace and a further objective would have to be cancelled or put on hold. So, if the original objective was to put a team on the Moon by the end of 1970s, with the objective of making a lunar colony, and a colony on Mars by the end of the 1990s...

Yes, but it was politically difficult even to keep the moon landing goal going for as long as they did, and with the pressure of the USSR possibly getting ahead of the US. If the USSR had won, I doubt there would have been much interest in going further with lunar colonies or an extremely expensive crewed Mars landing.

Also keep in mind that the shuttle was supposed to be an important part of a developing space infrastructure, to carry the fuel and parts for orbital fuel depots, space stations, lunar station and a reusable spacecraft designed to fly between Earth orbit and the moon

Unfortunately, there were a series of design compromises and unanticipated issues, and low flight rates that increased costs considerably.

However, there were plans for a second generation shuttle. A design that look at the major cost issues (like the fragile TPS that required heavy inspection) could have helped quite a bit. There were a lot of possibilities.

Ultimately, it fell apart because there wasn't enough interest in them. The ideas were out there. It's just that nobody could get the money to do them.

novaderrik
2009-Aug-28, 08:55 AM
OK, there's another implicit question: "Where would we be today if there was not the space race to go to the Moon in 1960s?" The space race was won in 1969 with Apollo 11, but it also killed the Moon exploration projects, as people lost interest on it just after the return of the astronauts (how many of the "Joe Sixpack" does know about the other 6 manned missions to the Moon? Most of them thinks that there where only one).

they know about that one where Tom Hanks saved the day after the explosion on the way to the moon..

astromark
2009-Aug-28, 11:54 AM
As Van Rijn has answered this negativity so well I fell there is only this to say.
Public apathy killed the space program not Apollo. You know you can not blame NASA for the dried up funding. They had lots of goals. Still waiting for there day in the sun...
The race to space is the only massive advancement man has made that was not directly involved with warfare. That is excepting that the original vehicles were exactly that, weapons delivery systems... If this is about why we have not yet been back and why have we not done all those things like we were told we would. Its about the money. You can not expect the USA to channel thousands of millions into a space station or Moon base while New Orleans is still not fixed and steel mills lay idol... No, to get humanity into space we need to find a want to do it. JFK and his drive to beat the communist block to the moon worked. You won... only you lost the drive to achieve. Could it be funded privately ? I do not see a MacDonald's lander any day soon,. Do you ? So OP you tell me. How do we do it.

Swift
2009-Aug-28, 01:10 PM
Is it true that, because of the Apollo Project, some projects create space colonies on the Moon and Mars were canceled, to try and send a man to the Moon till the end of the 1960s?

The only definitively planned things that got canceled were Apollo 18 to 20. But there were some ideas being brainstormed and in the planning stages for post-moon landing work, using the Saturn and the Apollo hardware, including longer duration work on the moon, and NEO work. This website (http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/) has a bunch of information.

Ilya
2009-Aug-28, 01:22 PM
In retrospect US would have been better off forfeiting Moon race to the Soviets, and instead building up on X-15 program until it got a fully reusable spaceplane.

Some things are obvious ONLY in retrospect.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-28, 03:01 PM
In retrospect US would have been better off forfeiting Moon race to the Soviets, and instead building up on X-15 program until it got a fully reusable spaceplane.
Not if you consider the politics at the time. The moon was integral in establishing international space politics, not just a technological one-upmanship.
The same happened with NEO politics in part with Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz. Not so much Skylab, but in A-S it stuck out like a sore thumb.

I have a feeling that even X-15 or another space related program would also have been cut because the politics of those kinds of programs did not warrant the cost of the technology, and they would have had to stand purely on the technological merits.


Some things are obvious ONLY in retrospect.
Just thought I'd blur your vision a bit...

Gillianren
2009-Aug-28, 04:27 PM
In retrospect US would have been better off forfeiting Moon race to the Soviets, and instead building up on X-15 program until it got a fully reusable spaceplane.

Some things are obvious ONLY in retrospect.

I don't know--people cared about Apollo. There's something cool about a trip to the Moon. Everyone can get into that. A reusable spaceplane? Would that have held the national imagination well enough to keep funding long enough?

Van Rijn
2009-Aug-28, 06:17 PM
I don't know--people cared about Apollo. There's something cool about a trip to the Moon. Everyone can get into that. A reusable spaceplane? Would that have held the national imagination well enough to keep funding long enough?

Well, we have the space shuttle. It kept some interest for a time, but had too many design compromises. It wasn't supposed to be the only shuttle, just the first generation model, but we don't have a Shuttle II, or Shuttle III.