Timeline for Any examples when one civilization/country got technology from another and after due to lack of knowledge lost it
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
41 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2021 at 17:28 | comment | added | Noldorin | I fear this is an example of a good answer that could really benefit from being more succinct! | |
| Jan 17, 2020 at 1:23 | comment | added | Mark | @GorttheRobot, we can't just dust off NASA's blueprints and build another Saturn V. The electronics for making the Instrument Unit are no longer available, and we've lost the knowledge of how to weld the cooling tubes making up the nozzle of the F-1 engine -- but that's because both are obsolete. A smartphone has all the capabilities of the IU at about a ten-thousandth the weight, and advances in fluid dynamics mean we can use a solid nozzle with boundary-layer management rather than an actively cooled one. | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 21:59 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | I think the loss is less about the German engineers who founded and led the Space Program, and more about losing virtually all the best of the 2nd generation hired in the heady days of Mercury and Gemini. As promotion opportunities evaporated amidst post Apollo budget cuts, the best rapidly left for greener pastures. | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 21:55 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 128 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2020 at 17:54 | comment | added | user15620 | Embedding direct responses to comments in the answer detracts greatly from any value the answer has. It makes it look less like an answer and more like a debate. Better to make direct responses in comments and adjust the answer as needed. Remember: someone finding this answer in ten years likely cares about what technologies civilizations have lost, not what Gort the Robot or jamesqf said. | |
| Jan 16, 2020 at 16:20 | history | edited | LаngLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected Spelling; Improved Formatting
|
| Jan 16, 2020 at 15:58 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 617 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 23:03 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 250 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 22:57 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 250 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 22:51 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 250 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 22:23 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 250 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 22:23 | comment | added | user15620 | And again, remember that then OP’s question is about loss of knowledge, not loss of will or willingness to pay. It’s not “are we currently building Saturn V equivalents but “if we spent a quarter of the national budget today, could we have a Saturn V in 6 years” | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 22:13 | comment | added | user15620 | Note that the Saturn V cost around $42 billion in 2019 dollars while the SLS budget is $7 billion. I am fairly certain we could get to the moon faster than we did in the sixties if we through $288 billion at it. | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 22:03 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 823 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 20:51 | comment | added | jamesqf | @JMS: Isn't saying that the US can't build Saturn Vs any more rather like saying that it can't build 8-track tape systems any more? Or vacuum-tube radios, CRT computer displays, floppy disk drives... | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 20:48 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 106 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 19:55 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 165 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 19:42 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1441 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 19:36 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1441 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 19:15 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4353 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 19:04 | comment | added | jamesqf | WRT the US getting basic rocket knowledge from captured German engineers, you're perhaps forgetting that the Germans got a lot of their basic knowledge from an American: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard And if safety wasn't a greater consideration nowadays than in the Apollo era, we could have been launching manned spacecraft on Falcon 9's for years. | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 18:23 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 328 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 16:41 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @JMS You already said that. How much of the Saturn V was designed to be re-usable or even recycled following a cancelled launch? If you're actually interested in how much of the STS is designed to be reused, I'd suggest reading the links above. Like I said, they use different technologies. Personally, I wouldn't call that technically inferior. | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 16:27 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 184 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 16:17 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 811 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 16:04 | comment | added | user27618 | @sempaiscuba, The SLS is a single launch 3 stage heavy lift rocket with a lift capacity of 70 metric tons to low earth orbit. The Saturn V was a single launch, 3 stage, heavy lift rocket yeilding a lift capacity of 90 metric tons to LEO. The SLS is technically an inferior rocket built more than 40 years after the Saturn V. | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 15:33 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 288 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 0:30 | comment | added | user15620 | I have a few issues with this question, but the primary one is that there's no evidence any knowledge was lost, which is the crux of the question. I am nearly certain NASA, Boeing, etc. have all of the technical knowledge needed to recreate the Saturn V. What's missing is money and will. The SLS is, of course, not a recreation but something entirely new. | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 23:46 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | SLS uses completely different technologies, so -from a project standpoint - most of what was learned developing the Saturn V and wasn't subsequently used in the development of the Shuttle systems was redundant. I'd suggest actually reading the links I posted in my comment above. | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 23:14 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 162 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2020 at 22:52 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 162 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2020 at 22:47 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | In regard to SLS, you say that "It's basically a recreation of the Saturn V". It isn't. The Wikipedia page makes it clear that SLS is a "Shuttle-derived launch vehicle". If you are interested, there is more detail freely available from the NASA Space Launch System pages. | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 22:42 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | While I don't quite get the DVs: 1. As I read the Q (which remains unclear as of yet), the tech has to be 'received from another civ' (Braun & Co may have been instrumental, but they didn't come with a full package, ready to moonrock) 2. The evidence you bring for 'ability' is circumstantial (even if good, I've heard that before; but I still read it all too much connected to SatV)). Do you have a more direct expert opinion/analysis that clearly says "We lost that 'man into space' tech/knowledge, can't get it back, no matter the money" (in foreseeable future)? | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 22:36 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 102 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2020 at 22:25 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 102 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2020 at 22:13 | comment | added | user15620 | Define "ability". Just because I pay someone else to retile my bathroom doesn't mean I don't have the ability to do it myself. | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 22:10 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 102 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2020 at 21:57 | comment | added | pokep | It's not due to lack of knowledge . . . it's due to a heightened appreciation for safety. Now that putting a man in space has minimal political value, the willingness to risk human life for symbolic purposes has changed. | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 21:29 | history | edited | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 102 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2020 at 21:29 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | That's a fantastic, twisted thought. Only I wonder if it does conflate two things: US 'lost' the ability to re-built the exact Apollo type. True? But it could do sth like that,manned space rocket, easily, if financed? ICBMs and Mars missions seem to indicate that NASA and military have monetary priorities & just conclude: "buy Russian if you want cheap stuff that just works"? | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 21:23 | history | answered | user27618 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |