|
Edited on Sun Jun-03-07 11:13 PM by happyslug
When JFK said the US would place a man on the moon, most of the technology was already available, it needed development and expansion to get to the moon, but it already existed in the 1950s. The big push for rockets occurred do to the V2 program of WWII. The US took some V2s (and built others) and called them Redstone Rockets. These were expanded for research all through the 1950s (In fact you can call the first Mercury mission, nothing but a V2 with a Second Stage attached). From these early rockets research was made in Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The reentry needs of an ICBM was the same as for a human, and given the size of the H-bombs of the time period, almost no difference in the weight (i.e. the Weight of a H-bomb exceeded that of an Astronaut and the Oxygen to keep him alive). The later Mercury Missions were launched from surplus Atlas ICBMs, and the Gemini program used heavy duty Titan ICBMs. TO get the much larger Saturn 1 A and V Rockets just require using the technology for the Atlas and Titan ICBMs on a much grander Scale. This development would have its own problems but no new BASIC research was required (in fact both the US and the Former Soviet Union had sent unmanned probes to the Moon even BEFORE Kennedy's Speech about going to the moon before 1970).
As to the need for "Space Suits" these first started with the Dive Bombers before WWII and expanded when planes started to exceed 20,000 feet (The point when people can NO longer get the oxygen they need from the air around them). As Planes went higher and higher more and more environmental protection was needed (i.e. a FULL SUIT to protect the pilot as opposed to just an Oxygen Masks of the WWII era planes). By the 1960s you had suits that were sealed for use in high attitude Balloons in addition to high attitude planes. At the same time people were going deeper and deeper in the oceans in man suits. These deep diving suits had been around since the late 1800s, sealed with hoses for Oxygen and rigid to retain their shape in high pressures. Combining the technology of these deep diving suits and the pressure suits of the jets pilots was not that hard to come up with the Space suits used by the Astronauts.
As to the Food, the US Army had been working on Food Technology, including Food that minimized waste, weight and size. This was the basis of the Food of the Astronauts.
As you can See the technology of the 1950s is what put us on the Moon, it was available and just needed an massive influx of cash to get these technologies together to put a man on the moon. What was needed was approximately known (The exact amount was unknown, but approximately what was needed was known). Furthermore since you had people marking the Rockets, the Suits and the Food already, the relatively slight switch to get to the moon was within easy reach if enough money was put into the program.
The Post-WWII Marshall Plan was similar, what was needed was known (i.e. food, technology and money) all that was needed is for the US to accept that fact that running a trade surplus with Europe and the rest of the World would just bleed these countries to such an extend that the Soviet Union would look like a Paradise on earth. Even the GOP recognized that problem, so agreed to spend a hugh amount of our trade surplus back into Europe and Japan to show that Capitalism worked. What was needed was known and once provided the Marshall Plan Stopped Soviet Expansion better than any use of force.
How do these two efforts compare with our upcoming Energy criss? First what is the Solution? The answer is reduce oil Usage. How do you do that? The traditional way is to raise the cost of Oil till such point people stop buying. The problem with that solution is people do NOT want to stop buying, for to stop buying means having to abandoned their home so they can live closer to their work (And that MAY not be possible given that in most families BOTH spouses work, often in different areas and getting to and from the two employment and one living area is ONLY possible via the Car). We just can NOT take what is already in production and upgrade it (i.e. Atlas Rocket to Saturn V Rocket) we have to adjust HOW we get to and from work.
My point is to solve the Oil crisis is NOT one of Scale but one of Structure. Going to smaller cars will help to a degree, but the better solution is to get people to live next to their work place. Since even before WWII, people with money (including the Middle Class) have moved from the inner City to suburbs where people of their economic background live. The inner city was left with people who could NOT afford to move out. Thus today, you have Suburban Schools for Middle Class kids, and Inner City Schools for poor children (and the rich often live in they own separate communities). Prior to Suburbanization, while you still had a class system, people had to live close to their work and thus their schools had to be close to the work. Most employers have poor workers, Working Class Workers, Upper Middle Class Managers and the owners of the Business. With the exception of the owners, the Schools near the business had to educate ALL THREE (Now these schools were often segregate the children into different classes but that is a separate issue).
Notice the issues in the Marshall Plan was money, in the Apollo Program, money and upscaling already existing technology. In the oil crisis throwing money at the problem will NOT produce more oil. Marking a larger (or Smaller) version of today's Society, is NOT a simple solution like designing the Saturn V Rocket (yes, the Saturn V was a complex piece of Technology, but it is simple compared to re-engineering our society to use less fuel).
In Simple terms, what is needed will AFFECT every single person on this Plant (and in the US). Everyone will have to give up something they have come to cherish. Lets just look at some:
1. Suburbia, there is NO way you can keep Suburbia suburban without the Car. The population density is to low to justify a Streetcar line, and the yards are to small to feed the family in the homes. It has to give. Given that most urban dwellers vote Democratic and Most Rural Residents vote GOP, it has been the Suburbs where elections are won and lost. You are NOT about to get Suburban votes by saying they are going to have to give up their homes AT A SEVERE LOST.
2. Most Americans can NOT envision getting around other than by Car. To get around any way else will take a change in mindset. Again Rural Dwellers will just have to get use to the idea of getting to town once or twice a month and be self-sufficient in between, a doable change but still an unpleasant one. Inner City have used buses for decades, but even in the Inner Cities (Outside of New York City and some other inner city core) most people get around by Car. Going back to ONLY using Streetcars and/or buses will be a doable but unpleasant change. Finally you have the Suburbs, which are NOT viable. When they no longer have the ability to buy gas, they must move AND LOSE THEIR HOME.
3. On top of the above, food prices will have to go up both to reflect the transfer of some farm acreage to the production of Bio-fuels AND the increase cost of shipping food do to increase cost of oil. With increase food prices, will come decrease in money available to buy other things, thus the consumer economy will die out, do to the combined costs of Oil and Food.
Thus the Solution to the oil Crisis (or to even acknowledge it is a problem and how to address it) leads you down to the above problems, changing society over a very short time period when people oppose the change. No Apollo program will solve the problem. The solution to the problem is NOT a quick (within ten years) solution, but a massive multi-decade change in our society that is best started early BY INCREASING THE COST OF OIL. People will REJECT that the problem is oil is to Cheap, instead demand lowing of the price of oil. Politicians will have to finesse this issue, NOT give into the desire to lower something that can NOT be lowered, but also NOT saying they want to see the price go up. Reality has to be ignored (that oil must go higher) but at the same time avoid committing to what is impossible (Lower oil prices). This dilemma is what the politicians are facing and until the American People accept the fact gasoline will go up and up, Politicians will avoid the issue.
As to Nuclear, Solar, Wind and other non-fossil fuel energy sources, these will provide very little new energy compared to what oil provided today, or will take DECADES to be built. These will be part of the solution, but re-structuring our society to use less energy will do more than even doubling the number of Nuclear plants. Our Society has to be re-structure and such a re-structuring will take years, but with new Nuclear, Solar, Wind Bio-Fuel, and other non-conventional forms of energy this problem will be addressed, but until people start to demand actual change, things will stagnant.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
