Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 29, 2006 23:01:28 GMT -4
My father worked at a NASA research reactor that operated during the 1960s and early 70s. It was part of NASA’s nuclear power and propulsion program and researched the effects of radiation on different materials and components. The reactor was a victim of the budget cuts that followed Apollo. All research stopped, the researchers moved on to other jobs, the reactor was decommissioned, and the facility is now in the process of demolition.
The people who worked there are now retired and mostly in their 70s and older. Most of the research was put into storage and has been sitting in a bunker virtually untouched for over 30 years. Many of the experiments performed were cutting edge stuff and one of a kind. The knowledge gained during the dozen or so years of operation could be invaluable to any future nuclear propulsion program. Unfortunately, much of the knowledge has already been forgotten and those who still retain some of it will soon be passing on. In another decade or two we’ll be left with nothing but the paperwork. But what condition is the paperwork in? Will current and future people understand it without the input of those who actually conducted the original research? It is highly probably most of this valuable and unique research will be lost forever, if it hasn’t been already. In all likelihood future researchers will have to start from scratch and relearn what was learned decades ago.
Although not part of the Apollo program, I tell this story because it is an example of how knowledge is lost when it is allowed to lay dormant for an extended period of time. Much of what we learned during the Apollo program is similar to the research conducted at the NASA reactor. It was put into storage and the people who had knowledge of it are now retired and aging. Quite simply, we lose what we don’t continue to use.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 29, 2006 23:30:45 GMT -4
Sure... So with the massive increase in computing power we have nowadays, we've somehow 'forgotten' everything that we allegedly learned during Apollo?
What do massive increases in computing power have to do with retaining engineering expertise, tooling, and facilities? I'm not being sarcastic.
And having massively more powerful computers to both design spacecraft, and run simulations, we are still unable to go 'back' to the moon?
What a crock.
No, it's not a crock. We're "unable" to send people to the Moon today for the simple reason that there is no suitable system. We've spent many years working in low Earth orbit. That's quite a different problem.
Moreover, even with all the computing power, you still have to design, build, test, and integrate the launch vehicles and crew vehicles and landers from scratch, and modify all the facilities - I was just reading an article in Aviation Week about how NASA is planning to modify the Vehicle Assembly Building, the Crawlers, and Launch Complex 39 A and B to transition to the lunar program from the Shuttle program. All these expensive facilities were themselves modified from Apollo - even if you had a flight-ready set of Apollo hardware today, you couldn't stack, transport, or launch it because these facilities no longer accommodate it.
Which bits do you suggest they've magically 'lost'?[
Did all the work from Apollo get destroyed in a fire or something?
Please search this forum for "tooling" and "blueprints". Jay, Bob B., and myself, among others, have discussed this at some length.
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on May 8, 2006 18:36:41 GMT -4
Did you take any advanced math classes in High School? Can you still do the same sorts of problems now? No? Then OBVIOUSLY your high school math classes were... A HOAX!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 8, 2006 19:52:32 GMT -4
So with the massive increase in computing power we have nowadays, we've somehow 'forgotten' everything that we allegedly learned during Apollo?
You wave your hands wildly at "computing power" as if it were the silver bullet for all engineering problems. Today's engineering is more dependent on numerical methods, which have supplanted other methods from the 1980s. Those methods in turn supplanted those from the 1960s, and so forth back to the dawn of time when a human created his first tool. We improve the tools and the processes because there is a demand for greater efficiency and capacity in our engineering. That means methods and designs from the past are no longer appropriate.
It is this progression of tools and techniques precisely that makes designs from one generation unexecutable by a future generation. I provide tools to automakers such as Ford, Toyota, and Audi. The uses to which my tools are put reflects 21st century automotive engineering.
I also had the pleasure last year of helping to convert a 1917 Ford Model T to electrical power in order to use it in a stage production. The techniques by which the Model T was produced nearly a hundred years ago -- although very modern by the standards at the time -- were still merely the extension of the 19th century carriage maker's art. The Model T is a carriage with an engine, although Henry Ford would roll over in his grave to hear me say it. Remove the gasoline engine and the driveline and all you have is a carriage with a simple steel frame and wooden-spoke wheels.
In Apollo's time spacecraft were made using techniques, methods, and assumptions borrowed from aircraft manufacturing. That was not entirely inappropriate, but today we design and build spacecraft using different enough methods that the designs from the 1960s are no longer viable by today's knowledge, and designs borrowed from airplane designs are no longer appropriate. A spacecraft designer in 2010 has no more use for some of the techniques from 1960 than an Audi engineer has for wooden-spoke wheels. Today we do things better, safer, and with different materials. That means we don't necessarily remember decades-old ways.
And having massively more powerful computers to both design spacecraft...
Computers do not, cannot, and will never "design spacecraft". Design is a creative act incorporating many elements that do not lend themselves to raw computation. The computer is one of many tools a designer can employ to assist in the design process, but it is not the only tool necessary.
What a crock.
And you've personally designed exactly what? It's clear you've never been within 10 miles of any serious engineering project.
Which bits do you suggest they've magically 'lost'?
It runs far deeper than you imagine. You don't get the idea that aerospace uses techniques that, in many cases, were proprietary to their manufacturers and were known by only a handful of people, and may -- in some cases -- even have been invented especially for Apollo.
I talked to Frank Pullo, who supervised the construction of the lunar module ascent stage. We both lamented the relative scarcity of skilled line workers these days. I wander through my production facility and see spotty-faced teenagers working a summer job. Gone are the days when a line worker spent years doing the same kinds of machining and assembly jobs and was very skilled at it. There were people who could hand-drill holes placed with 0.001 inch accuracy -- by eyeball.
Why is this important? Because how you make something determines how the design looks. You design an object with preconceptions of how it will be fabricated.
Today aerospace uses certain exotic materials that weren't readily available in 1960. Those materials have their own strengths and liabilities. And so the things we design with those materials in mind. Spacecraft of 2010 must be better than spacecraft of 1960 because we expect more out of them. Audi won't get anywhere using wooden-spoke wheels, just because it's presumed we gain something by already knowing how to make them.
So today's engineers are expected to work with advanced materials and production techniques. And those items engender specific constraints in the design.
What might have been done in 1960 with aluminum honeycomb might today be accomplished by carbon fiber composite. These two materials have different properties, require different techniques to manufacture them, and impose different constraints on the design. But we opt for the composite because it is lighter for the same strength than the former aluminum. Someone who is used to laying up carbon composites in intricate patterns may not know how to make aluminum honeycomb, or to chem-mill billet aluminum.
Did all the work from Apollo get destroyed in a fire or something?
No. All the "work" from Apollo never existed entirely in tangible form, nor is it applicable decades later. Running an engineering enterprise is not like operating a McDonalds. There isn't a loose-leaf notebook that tells you everything you will ever need to know to build a spacecraft and everything that can possibly go wrong with the process. The people who do the designing and manufacturing are the people who invented how to do the designing and manufacturing. It's not as if some people dream up the genius stuff and then pass it on to dumb automatons to do the actual work.
|
|