Just because the specific methodology became obsolete doesn’t mean we lost anything along the way
The F-1 (the engine in the Saturn V, used in the Apollo missions) remains the most powerful rocket engine ever built. [0]
So no, we can't build them bigger, or even as well as, we used to.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_e...
It doesn't say nasa has been trying to make a bigger one for decades.
> They still haven't figured it out.
...is not what the article said. They lost the plans, they're recreating them.
Which is exactly the point I made at first. That we've lost the knowledge to make the engine.
And you have not acknowledged you misrepresented what the article said.
What is it with you types that have to feel we're failing, going backwards? I had an argument once with a guy that insisted there were compiler optimisation that aren't used any more because they are now lost - there are literally books on those opts, web articles accessible in a few clicks, probably youtube vids (in fact, see godbolt's stuff) - why are you types so set on failure and ignorance? What exactly are you thinking when you post this inaccurate and negative stuff?
Aren't there enough problems in the world without making up nonexistent ones?
Those guys are always referencing ancient texts.
Many parts of humanity stagnated for millennia - see cave systems in France and Eastern Europe which were occupied for thousands of years without any progress.
I find it incredible that you could take a baby from that era, send them to school and they could be indiscernible from the rest of us.
You seemed to have missed a couple of points there. Of course we can build the pyramids, but can we do it with the same level of technology that we think they had? Of course we can build better engines than the Apollo ones but can we recreate exactly those? These were the questions post to highlight that we have lost knowledge before.
It's knowledge that we don't necessarily need, if we really needed to made pyramids in the same way, we'd figure it out.
We've been trying to figure it out for a century and still haven't. Why do you think we could now?
Same with the engines. We've been trying to make an F-1 for over a decade. In 2013 they even tore one down to figure out how it was made [0]. They still haven't figured it out.
[0] https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146829-nasa-resurrects-i...
This is a false equivalency because you're confounding a uncontrollable natural process with things that could easily come with an instruction manual and be as replicate as a cake or science experiment. Identity is not the goal but sufficient similarity to meet specific requirements.
> It's knowledge that we don't necessarily need, if we really needed to made pyramids in the same way, we'd figure it out.
This moves the goal post and changes the subject because the original point was whether or not we lose knowledge, not whether or not that is acceptable.