Sputnik and AC

[bobman0330]

People talk about the Apollo Project like it was great, but I don't understand why. It was enormously expensive, killed three astronauts and almost killed another 3 (out of fewer than two dozen missions!), and accomplished what? Primarily, beating the Russians. Furthermore, there's good reason to believe that the focus on getting to the moon in 8 year time frame pushed us away from more rational development of space. Instead of working on space stations in 1961, we were working on gigantic, useless rockets fit only for sending a couple people directly to the moon and bringing back a handful of rocks.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
People talk about the Apollo Project like it was great, but I don't understand why. It was enormously expensive, killed three astronauts and almost killed another 3 (out of fewer than two dozen missions!), and accomplished what? Primarily, beating the Russians.

[/ QUOTE ]

WAY WRONG. Primarily, radically improved ICBM design. Yay space program benefits!

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, there's good reason to believe that the focus on getting to the moon in 8 year time frame pushed us away from more rational development of space. Instead of working on space stations in 1961, we were working on gigantic, useless rockets fit only for sending a couple people directly to the moon and bringing back a handful of rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because that's what was needed to get popular support behind the project. If you just came out and said "we want to spend $1,000,000,000,000 to design better systems for killing billions of people in a matter of minutes" there probably wouldn't have been as much "fan support".

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
If you just came out and said "we want to spend $1,000,000,000,000 to design better systems for killing billions of people in a matter of minutes" there probably wouldn't have been as much "fan support"

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't that a key part of Kennedy's platform, phrased in basically that way?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People talk about the Apollo Project like it was great, but I don't understand why. It was enormously expensive, killed three astronauts and almost killed another 3 (out of fewer than two dozen missions!), and accomplished what? Primarily, beating the Russians.

[/ QUOTE ]

WAY WRONG. Primarily, radically improved ICBM design. Yay space program benefits!


[/ QUOTE ]

The Apollo program had very little to do with ICBM design.

In fact, as stated in my post above, the lift vehicle for Apollo was one of the first delivery systems *NOT* specifically designed to be an ICBM.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People talk about the Apollo Project like it was great, but I don't understand why. It was enormously expensive, killed three astronauts and almost killed another 3 (out of fewer than two dozen missions!), and accomplished what? Primarily, beating the Russians.

[/ QUOTE ]

WAY WRONG. Primarily, radically improved ICBM design. Yay space program benefits!


[/ QUOTE ]

The Apollo program had very little to do with ICBM design.

In fact, as stated in my post above, the lift vehicle for Apollo was one of the first delivery systems *NOT* specifically designed to be an ICBM.

[/ QUOTE ]

A NASCAR race car is NOT specifically designed for use on highways, yet one of the primary purposes of racing R&D from manufacturer perspectives is to develop technolgy for use in consumer vehicles.

Of course, in this case, such R&D is funded through voluntary measures.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
A NASCAR race car is NOT specifically designed for use on highways, yet one of the primary purposes of racing R&D from manufacturer perspectives is to develop technolgy for use in consumer vehicles.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good to know, but it isn't what we were discussing in this topic. Instead of referring to analogies that have some similarities, but just as many differences, let's stay on topic.

You asserted the rockets used in the Apollo program were the "exact same" as those ICBM's used to deliver weapons, and that is absolutely incorrect.

The Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo program were developed independently of parallel military programs to develop ICBM's, and their purpose was specifically as a space launch and heavy payload delivery system for lunar orbit.

The Saturn V had absolute no use as an ICBM, and played little to no role in the R&D of ICBM's.

In fact, the first Saturn V launched in 1967, and was developed by NASA primarily at Huntsville, and it was concieved AFTER the Minuteman program that had already produced operational ICBM's.

The Minuteman program deployed the first operational ICBM's in 1962, developed by the DOD and they were active up until 1997, and the current stock of land-based ICBM's in operation were first deployed in 1969 based on the earlier models, and are projected to be active until 2040.

ICBM's in their current form exist exactly as they do now, independent of any R&D from the Apollo program.

The Saturn V is a liqued fuel rocket that was developed by NASA for the singular purpose of devlivering a heavy payload to lunar orbit.

The Minuteman is a solid fuel missile that was developed by DoD for the singular purpose of delivering weapons payload.

In short, the intent nor outcome of the Apollo program had next to nothing to do with the advancement of ICBM technology. It doesn't change the fact that the Apollo program may have been a colossal waste of money, but it is incorrect to assert it's purpose was to advance the development of ICBM's, as that was an entirely seperate, military program.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You asserted the rockets used in the Apollo program were the "exact same" as those ICBM's used to deliver weapons, and that is absolutely incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite please.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of working on space stations in 1961, we were working on gigantic, useless rockets fit only for sending a couple people directly to the moon and bringing back a handful of rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apollo produced excellent technology for space stations; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab

[pvn]

Can you tell which of these is carrying human beings and which is carrying nuclear warheads?





Hint, the lift vehicle is EXACTLY THE SAME! Coincidence?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Hint, the lift vehicle is EXACTLY THE SAME! Coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are pics of a Titan II, and the majority of Apollo missions used the Saturn V rocket as it's launch vehicle.

The Saturn V rocket was one of the first rockets specifically NOT developed for use as an ICBM, but instead solely as a space launch vehicle.

The Saturn V and Titan II aren't "exactly the same"....

The Saturn V had three stages, was 3 times taller, 3x in diameter, and nearly TWENTY TIMES the mass of the Titan II.

Not to mention the Saturn V had nearly 30 times the payload capacity of the Titan II, nor that the Titan II was not capable of delivering any meaningful payload to lunar orbit.

There were only 15 Saturn V rockets deployed, and they were never designed, intended, or implemented as ICBM's, nor as a weapon delivery system.

(ICBM's had been deployed almost 5 years prior to the moon landing, and before the bulk of the Apollo missions...)

The Titan II , however, was originally developed as an ICBM and deployed as such, and only afterwards was it converted as a space launch system for the Gemini program....not the Apollo program.

The interesting thing being, it was an ICBM first, then used for the space program, not vice-versa.

Like I said, minor nit for the purpose of this thread, but a rather large point of contention depending on who you talk too and what their background is.....in short, one is a rocket, the other is a missile, and there actually is a big difference.