Why is it that NASA could get to the moon 40 years ago, but can't get a shuttle into space safely today?

Question

What is it about today's technology that prohibits us from being able to fly shuttles without issues? Seems as though it was an o-ring, then heat tiles, etc. I don't get it!!

Answer 1

Space has always been a dangerous business, Apollo 1 burned on the launch pad in 1967 and 3 astronauts died. and lets not forget the near tragedy of Apollo 13.

Answer 2

Apollo 1 module burnt out killing the crew. Why don't you research before you print your ignorance.

The difference with the shuttle is that it is reusable. The capsule that brought men back to Earth is dispensible. Big difference.

The shuttles are immensely bigger to take a large crew. It has to be shaped like an aircraft in order to land on a runway. The lunar capsule was just a tiny cone shaped thing, much easier to protect on re-entry.

That means that shuttles require a whole different heat protection technology - hence the heat shield tiles.

The problem here is that all those who have no real knowledge of the space program, but still think they can spout nonsense about faked moon landings and criticise the Shuttle missions, do not realise that the shuttles were designed with a different technology - re-usability. That in itself presents new difficulties.

Also, shuttles are based on 1970s technology, so they are not that much more advanced than Apollo. If you think the space program should be more advanced, then vote for a candidate that is going to increase your taxes substantially to pay for it.

Answer 3

Actually, the shuttles are pretty safe. The media - perhaps unintentionally so - has portrayed the shuttles as total deathtraps. True, the shuttles are aging, but the two shuttle disasters were preventable. More than anything else, they were the result of carelessness on the part of NASA.

The pre-shuttle missions were equally hazardous. The Apollo 1 fire and the Apollo 13 explosion show that manned spaceflight has always been inherently dangerous. Back in the 1960s, the general public understood that, but not anymore. The advent of the space shuttle made spaceflight seem routine, and the widespread perception of the dangers of spaceflight began to fade. Now, even minor damage to the shuttle is cause for unnecessary panic.

Answer 4

Well, for one thing the technology behind the shuttle is now over 30 years old, so it is hardly cutting edge. It is also a compromise between what NASA wanted and what the military wanted. Were the shuttle placed on top of the fuel tank with disposable engines at the bottom, the heat shields would be out of harms way and an escape system could have saved the Columbia astronauts. Finally, if we had had as many Apollo missions as shuttle missions there would have inevitably been a few disasters.

Answer 5

the only way you could get it is if you new something about the rigors of space travel. The shuttle encounters heat up to 3000 degrees Fahrenheit in order to go through the Earth's atmosphere, and in space has to endure extreme cold. The shuttle has to be air tight and well insulated in order to protect our astronauts.

Then the research and development end of space travel is huge. You have to understand that there was no precedent for building a space craft that was reusable until the shuttle program. They had to start from scratch when they built the shuttle...and this included some design flaws. You also have to remember that these craft are old and are going to be retired with a new fleet by 2010!

Answer 6

the original engineers have all retired & all the old German nazi scientists that developed the saturn 5 rockets have died. and btw we are still using their technology, the shuttles were designed in the 70s the only advancements have been made in electronics. I believe the next landings will be made by China because we have lost the will to sacrifice for the sake of exploration & will spend our money on our own comfort & entitlements for the voters instead of advancing science. also because of our degraded educational system we may no longer have the ability to develop a deep space transportation system. look at all the failed mars explorers in the last 10 or 12 years. the nasa of the 60s would have completed those missions, without all the stupid mistakes that caused them to fail.

Answer 7

Space shuttles are reusable. Lowering cost of the missions and allowing more frequent missions. It is true that they had design flaws. NASA will use the lessons learned and apply newer technologies to create a better fleet within funding limits. Newly designed fleets are being discussed. There have already been some design tests such as the failed X-33 craft. One current design is the Crew Exploration Vehicle under the Project Constellation.

Answer 8

The shuttle is a much heavier, more advanced, bigger spacecraft than what we launched to the moon 40 years ago.

The Saturns didn't have to worry about external tanks or O-rings, as they didn't have those. They were much simpler spacecraft.

And, not to argue - but we routinely get them into orbit safely. There have been accidents - and, with the next generation space craft, there'll likely STILL be accidents - but that's the nature of the beast.

Answer 9

The launch does not could be suitable. not something ever is. As you have observed, some technologies became better 40 years in the past. American astronauts went lower back to the Moon 5 greater circumstances, and lower back. No different united states has long gone simply by cost of the kind of undertaking, and the risk of the missions. A rocketship equivalent to the Nineteen Sixties rocketship not exists. "Hooha"? "Unnamed united states"? No, there became open opposition and communique between the gap courses of the U. S. and the U.S.. each had an dazzling, stepped forward, and energetic software.

Answer 10

Apollo made a total of 7 flights to land on the moon. Of that 7 attempts, 1 failed in its mission. That's a 14.3% failure rate.

Keep in mind, each one of those trips was on a brand-new launch vehicle and spacecraft -- brand-new.

The shuttles have made about 120 flights with re-useable spacecraft and has had 2 mission-ending failures. That's a failure rate of about 1.7 % -- almost 1/10th that of Apollo.

So, which system is better?

.