Necessity is the mother of invention and there was a necessity for computing power in Apollo that transistors and valves could not fulfill.

Go view the Apollo 11 command module for yourself, take a look at some of the moon rocks collected, ask the onlookers if the rocket really launched or not.

Yes, I agree it is laughable that you spend 8 billion on a rocket then suddenly "can't find the plans" anymore (they know exactly where the plans are - they HAD to be "lost" to get the shuttle built). Arguments against the Saturn 5 based upon the age of its technology don't stack up either. The computer systems can be updated, the combustion chambers tweaked a little, and really that is all that requires any sort of change, the rocket already works - and damn well at that.

It won't ever be revived though, because that would deny aerospace contactors valuable pork money from creating and building newer designs even though the old are perfectly capable (more capable than the shuttle ever was or ever could be no matter what you do to improve it).

Okay, then explain why Apollo 13 turned out the way it did if NASA were faking astronauts being on board, or Apollo 1 for that matter.

Go view the Apollo 11 command module for yourself, take a look at some of the moon rocks collected, ask the onlookers if the rocket really launched or not.

Yes, I agree it is laughable that you spend 8 billion on a rocket then suddenly "can't find the plans" anymore (they know exactly where the plans are - they HAD to be "lost" to get the shuttle built). Arguments against the Saturn 5 based upon the age of its technology don't stack up either. The computer systems can be updated, the combustion chambers tweaked a little, and really that is all that requires any sort of change, the rocket already works - and damn well at that.

It won't ever be revived though, because that would deny aerospace contactors valuable pork money from creating and building newer designs even though the old are perfectly capable (more capable than the shuttle ever was or ever could be no matter what you do to improve it).

The russians are still sour because their unmanned spoiler missions to the moon failed, despite making it to the moon slightly before NASA managed it.

"I suspect most people don't realize how far removed the Apollo photos they remember are from the originals. The original chromes never left the NASA vaults. A very few institutions, including the Smithsonian, got first-generation 'master' dupes. A few very elite publications got second-gen dupes. Most publications got third- or even fourth-gen dupes.

"Add in another generation for the printed reproduction and you're typically 4 or 5 generations away from the originals.

"How big a difference did that make? I've been lucky enough to see some of the Apollo chromes in the Smithsonian archives. The difference between those and what typically appeared in a good publication is like the difference between printing a negative on Grade 2 paper and Grade 4. Not to mention the color and saturation distortions commensurate with that.

"Two books are noteworthy: Orbit: NASA Astronauts Photograph the Earth by Jay Apt, Michael Helfert, and Justin Wilkinson, and Full Moon by Michael Light. The photos for Orbit were scanned from original flight film ('zero generation' original, first generation reproduction) and color/tone corrected by Roger Ressmeyer. (Ressmeyer had a scanner station built onsite, so film never had to leave the storage facility.)

"Michael Light was not quite so blessed; he had to work off of first-generation 'master' dupes. Perceptive viewers will see artifacts, e.g., some small amount of dark haloing around the blackest shadows, which are evidence of slight degradation in the duping process. His results are still remarkable and gorgeous.

"Those who want some sense of what the photos really looked like owe it to themselves to own these books.

"Digital imaging has been a true blessing to space photography; no longer do we public have to suffer with distorted and degraded n-generation offspring."