• subignition@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    why can’t we build them again? were the blueprints and knowledge lost? deliberately destroyed? genuine question

    • Bimfred@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      The production lines are shut down and any custom tooling has had its materials reclaimed to make other things. The institutional knowledge, the little bits that never got written down in the blueprints or manufacturing instructions, it’s all gone. The people who worked on that rocket and its components are dead or have been working on something else for the last 50 years. How well would you remember some little tidbit of information that you last needed half a lifetime ago?

    • sprittytinkles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Because a lot of “Released Engineering Documents” were just engineering notebooks, and each vehicle was different, even the parts that were supposed to be the same. There was a lot of “repair” versus “rework” disposition, and a “Just make it work; it only needs to work once” culture.

      Basically, because it was a race against the Russians, and the Russians were winning.

      • subignition@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 days ago

        huh, impressive that we did a (relatively) slapdash job of it and still pulled it off. Thanks for clarifying.

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          It’s downright fucking nuts that it all worked and I’m astonished we didn’t leave any astronauts on the moon, and Apollo 13 crew made it back.

          Apollo 13 is a helluva movie that really exposes how razor-thin everything was.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Because it is based on obsolete technology. You wouldn’t want to build a flight computer with hard-wired (as in literal wires) software, would you? A lot of it would also have to be reverse engineered, to the point where you might as well build a new vehicle.

      • Amon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        You wouldn’t want to build a flight computer with hard-wired (as in literal wires) software

        We can use an FPGA for that

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          The software was the thing that was in the wires, not I/O.

          The wires would be replaced by FLASH memory.

          • Amon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            Wouldn’t they use a MROM or something instead, because flash memory can be quite volatile in the extreme conditions?