And that has as much in common with the Great Pyramids in Egypt as a golf ball does with the Death Star.

It's still a pyramid.

And a golf ball still confuses Han Solo.

[quote name='Luckless' timestamp='1311550356' post='4839778']
And that has as much in common with the Great Pyramids in Egypt as a golf ball does with the Death Star.

It's still a pyramid.
[/quote]

But has zero to do with the construction and engineering methods used in the Great Pyramids. From a quick read on them, they're not even the same shape. The angles don't appear to match up.

But has zero to do with the construction and engineering methods used in the Great Pyramids. From a quick read on them, they're not even the same shape. The angles don't appear to match up.

So? Why would we use 4000 year old construction and engineering methods in a building built in the last century? That doesn't change the fact that it is still a pyramid.

Apparently someone missed a minor point that is kind of important to what was being said.

No one builds [size="7"]Great Pyramids any more,...

The Great Pyramids aren't just a 'pyramid shaped object', they are of specific designs and construction styles. Styles that have nothing to do with the structure in Vegas in anyway, shape, or form.

An igloo has more in common with the sphere at Epcot than Luxor Las Vegas has with any of the Great Pyramids of Giza.

So? Why would we use 4000 year old construction and engineering methods in a building built in the last century? That doesn't change the fact that it is still a pyramid.

But will it support Ra's huge spacecraft upon landing?

Great Pyramids were not built as "great". They were an epeen father/son type of thing, where each successor wanted a bigger tombstone.

People still die, we still bury them, we still remember them. Some rest in mausoleums. Some in tombs. But we have lost capacity to build pyramids for this purpose.

Assuming a leader or a powerful person today wanted to build a monument of epic proportions to stand for 10,000 years - it cannot be done. Leaders today are elected and spending 20 years of budget on something like this would simply not work. Then there are trivialities, such obtaining sanitation permits, work permits, clearance from environmentalists, to negotiating with unions, ....

Yes, pyramids were nothing but tombstones made of piled rocks. We know that. And we have lost the ability to replicate it.


Mission to moon. Parts of rockets are still all over the place, landers are in museums, books document every aspect, there is landing computer emulator somewhere online. We know all that.

Can we put a man on the moon? No. We would be starting from scratch.


"But if we really wanted, we could". Same argument applies to both and many see no difference between ROI of moon mission vs. pyramids. Apparently, if moon missions and space program mattered, we would still be doing it and be able to do it. But we're not, so the capacity to do so was lost.


The problems here are surfacing elsewhere as well. Increasingly, the know-how to maintain nuclear warheads and related technology is missing. There are nuclear warheads that nobody knows how to replicate or repair. Nuclear technology lost its steam around 1970 and ultimately at 1986. 40 years means an increasing number of people active during that time are dead and their intrinsic knowledge is lost.


One of the biggest struggles in company is retaining knowhow. Remember the "bus factor". See the Steve Jobs' impact on Apple stock. Many companies died or flattened out when a single key person left. Having learned from those mistakes, companies developed process that turns anyone (except CxO) into replacable cogs. Companies can lose key capability over night. The company will be around for a decade or more, turning profit, but it has permanently lost that one ability. "As long as I get my paycheck, who cares".



There are books about Pyramids and Apollo program. And movies. But we can no longer do either.

This is the crucial difference between "talking" and "doing".

Besides the entertainment for the astronauts and the people watching at home, it's pretty pointless to send humans to the moon anyway. Been there, done that. If we want to take pictures and gather materials, we are better off sending a robot than a heavy sack of meat that is in no way adapted to the environment and needs constant maintenance. Sure, it's interesting to see how the human body reacts during the trip, but I much rather see unmanned vehicles send off to places we will never be able to visit in person.

I think the problem about getting a man to the moon is not so much about being able to do it, but about it being pointless, and as such, generally too risky. Space travel, as it is, has an extreme nature. The involved forces are extreme, the material must withstand extreme conditions, the weardown is extreme. The risk is extreme. Things that are entirely trivial in our very protected biosphere are a desaster in space or on another celestial body. Which means no more and no less than bad things will happen, it's not about "if", but "when".

In the 1960s, the US wanted to prove to the USSR that they were the bigger guns with the tougher spaceships. Just to show to everyone that Captain America kicks Ivan's butt was enough to warrant billions of dollars spent and a few crews being reduced to smithereens in their spaceships. Hey, those were the heroes who went where no man had gone before. Moon or bust. Everything was allowed.

That time is over.

Today, if a rocket explodes in mid flight, kililng 6 or 7 people, you have a huge problem explaining to the press why you still can't do your job right after half a century of manned space travel. All the experts on the internet will know how you could have done it better, too. And, you can't explain to a government who doesn't yet know how to pay the not-gun-wielding federal employees in a month from now why you need another billion dollars if "no bad press" is the best you can achieve.

I think the problem about getting a man to the moon is not so much about being able to do it, but about it being pointless, and as such, generally too risky. Space travel, as it is, has an extreme nature. The involved forces are extreme, the material must withstand extreme conditions, the weardown is extreme. The risk is extreme. Things that are entirely trivial in our very protected biosphere are a desaster in space or on another celestial body. Which means no more and no less than bad things will happen, it's not about "if", but "when".

I would say having a handful of manned flights to another celestial body isn't pointless, but it's point greatly diminishes with each further attempt until some other metric is changed in the experiment such as colonizing another celestial body or landing a significant amount of people on said body rather than just a handful. To explore another celestial body is not really worth the risk though.

I would say that having a manned space station is worth the risk however. I'm really excited about the possibilities of spacecraft being built that don't have to handle the stresses of going through an atmosphere.