Slashdot Log In
NASA Turns 50
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Jul 30, 2008 02:19 AM
from the make-a-wish dept.
from the make-a-wish dept.
phobos13013 writes "Fifty years ago yesterday, in 1958, President Eisenhower signed the United States Public Law 85-568, National Aeronautics and Space Act to create NASA. In the fifty years since its creation, NASA has made manned missions landing on the Moon, put a space station in orbit, launched numerous unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars, the solar system, and beyond, as well as launching reusable manned spacecraft in orbit. Some of the failures included the loss of two manned spacecraft and their crews as well as the loss of the Apollo 1 crew during a training mission. Although the future of the organization is in question, Americans, and the world, are looking forward to another fifty years of progress including a return trip to the Moon and an eventual manned mission to Mars."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Wowzers! (Score:4, Interesting)
Am I seeing things, or does this story have no comments attached to it five hours after it was posted to slashdot?!?!
That's got to be some record, at least post-1998.
I guess that means I can say... First Post!
Also, Go Nasa! Keep the orbiting observatories coming!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I seeing things, or does this story have no comments attached to it five hours after it was posted to slashdot?!?!
Actually, according to the time stamps I can see, you posted your comment 9 1/2 hours before the story was posted... funky.
Re:Wowzers! (Score:4, Funny)
You failed to capitalize the first word of your sentence. Never post again.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Never post again.
OK, if you insist!
Science: NASA Turns 50
Posted by kdawson on Wednesday July 30, @04:19AM
Re:Wowzers! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, @06:34PM (#24392319)
Strange, though, that the article was posted to Slashdot's front page on the correct date (the 29th [wikipedia.org]), retracted, and then reposted a date late (today). I smell a conspiracy...
ah, for a moon landing flame war... (Score:3, Funny)
We obviously didn't land on the moon, check out the alleged videos, the astronauts jump but don't fly away. Learn some science, you people are sheep.
That should do it, please discuss.
Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... (Score:5, Funny)
It has one of those?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
i ve seen the space shuttle ass hole it definetly landed on the moon do some research...
Actually it was the Apollo Lunar Lander which landed on the Moon, after being launched with a Saturn V rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are responding with correct information but, really, I hope the parent of your post (the GP) was just joking in saying that the space shuttle landed on the moon. I hope... I really really hope.
Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm feeling a lot better now. I'd *hoped* you were joking. Damn am I glad you were.
Re: (Score:2)
Karma is for whores anyhow. ;)
I, really, say what I have to say regardless of the karma hit that I'll take and yet I still seem to be as high as /. will let me be.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mod back up pls
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If the Discovery channel's song is true, are you proposing that they would send someone up there just to sing and float away? Absurd isn't it? My point exactly...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real reason the astronauts didn't fly away is because they were wearing heavy boots [milk.com].
But what comes next? (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA has accomplished some trult amazing feats during the last 50 years, the pinnacle surely being the moon landing of Apollo 11, which I remember watching as an awe-struck 13 year old. But where does it go from here?
With many countries now seriously into spaceflight and a burgeoning private sector (Virgin Galactic et al) it's hard to see how NASA will stand out as it has done previously.
However in a much more space-focussed world, NASA's vast experience should allow it to take the lead heading-up collaborative ventures with other space-faring nations, particularly for the 'Big One', a manned trip to Mars. A firm commitment to this within a set timescale could re-ignite the public's interest in space exploration like the Moon landings of the early 70s did.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
NASA has always had this mentality of trailblazing.. the assumption has always been there that someone else will follow once they lead the way. This is lost on many people who look for NASA to build cities on the Moon or whatever.
Re:But what comes next? (Score:5, Insightful)
But that was 40 years ago, which is exactly what the problem is. NASA's budget has been going down ever since (as a percentage of the nation's budget) all the way from 4% to 0.7% and falling. The only way things are going to change in a dramatic way is if somebody figures out a genuine commercial interest in space exploration, which would lead to an increase in NASA's budget and more competition from private sector and from other nations.
Parent
Re:But what comes next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, people in this country stop acting so anti-government and commit to a space program on the scales you're talking about. Personally, I don't see commercial interests EVER besting NASA as far as milestones go. Sure, they can use the technology that national space programs develop, but no way a corporation is going to sink $100 billion into getting a man on the Mars.
Everyone keeps talking about how NASA is in danger as if Microsoft is going to take over space exploration. NASA hasn't hit the same scale of milestones as the moon shot, but I've been impressed with what they've been getting done. Now, I want to see more but we live in a country full of intellectually disinterested American Idol fans.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, they can use the technology that national space programs develop, but no way a corporation is going to sink $100 billion into getting a man on the Mars.
Even if a corporation was willing to spend that much money... there's no way it would happen. Almost everyone (politicians, executives, shareholders, and the general public) is pretty much incapable of long-term thinking. Hell, most companies don't even seem to think beyond this quarter, much less this year--just look at all the dumb decisions that boost quarterly profits at the expense of long-term ones. Something like the space program could have an enormous benefit twenty or thirty years down the road
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then there's the inconvenient truth that almost all the good science is being done by unmanned craft. Try and list scientific accomplishments that have come out of the International Space Statio
DSCOVR was a victim of ideology, not budgets... (Score:3, Informative)
The current administration has zero interest in funding anything to do with studying climate change, particularly a satellite first proposed by Al Gore.
It was built, but never launched. It now sits in storage (at a cost of $1M/year), awaiting a less hostile administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triana_(satellite) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think that's a lot then I don't think you want to know how much money the US is spending on its military.
/Mikael
Re:But what comes next? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm tired of this "but there are poor people!" argument. We could dump every spare cent in the budget into welfare programs, and you'll still have poor people.
If you want to look at it this way, a space program is a jobs program. It's not like all the money spent on it is thrown away in space, or burned in a giant pit... that money all goes into the economy. It pays all the small contractors that make electronics, valves, pumps, etc.; it pays all the mechanics and technicians that build and maintain the systems; it pays all the engineers that design the spacecraft... and all those people have to live and eat somewhere. Make the program interesting, and kids will think "hey, I want a part of that", and they'll stay in school, get science and engineering degrees, and have a better future. I think that's much more beneficial than just handing out welfare checks.
We need to change the focus of the space program, too. No more of this focus solely on science; it's good and all, but it doesn't directly solve practical problems. The focus should instead be on preserving the human race--ie, developing defenses against planet-killer asteroids and spreading out over many worlds (redundant off-site backups). And you know that, if something happens (like a large asteroid coming at us), the public will be screaming "do something, save us!" And I'll just be sitting there saying "well, I told you so, but nobody listened."
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
After the first FAILED private sector spaceflight, I think the billionaires will rightly leave space to the experts.
There is ZERO justification for a moon base at this time. We HAVE a space station. The shuttle is a ridiculous contraption at the moment. By the way, have you seen the national debt lately?
I think NASA is doing EXACTLY what it should be doing, which is unmanned robotic missions. Imagine what we could gather from an array of hubble telescopes... and what little more we could learn from an e
Selling you yesterday's future today (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Selling you yesterday's future today (Score:4, Informative)
50 years, and we are still stuck in low Earth orbit. 50 years, and still no cost-effective launch system.
If all goes well, we'll have one this weekend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Upcoming_launches [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Selling you yesterday's future today (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a fixed cost in terms of energy to pull a pound of matter out of the Earth's deep-ass gravity well. You're asking for a near-free source of energy that can effortlessly be converted into kinetic propulsion. NASA hasn't found it because it may very well NOT EXIST.
You need to remember what the 'Fi' in Sci-Fi stands for. Just because a handful of its thousands and thousands of predictions have come true doesn't mean the whole mess was a bill of sale.
Arthur C. Clarke himself has said that it's out and out incredible that we've gotten as far in space as we have, and that without the historical oddity that was the Cold War, we'd probably not be much further along than a fancier Sputnik.
Cheap ways of escaping the Earth's gravity are kind of like Time Machines, Anti-Aging cures, FTL drives, zero-gravity chambers, true holographic projection, and such. Just because they'd be awesome and we've been talking about them forever doesn't mean there's any remotely reasonable expectation that we'll see them in our lifetimes. There's still a WHOLE lot of history left to happen.
Parent
Re:Selling you yesterday's future today (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a fixed cost in terms of energy to pull a pound of matter out of the Earth's deep-ass gravity well.
Keep in mind that energy is a tiny fraction of current launch costs. Right now the vast majority of the costs for vehicles like the shuttle go into paying the standing army of personnel on the ground.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
...still no cost-effective launch system.
That will require airline-type operations. That will require higher design margins. That will require higher payload mass ratio. That will require air breathing. That will require SCRAM.
At the end of WWII Boeing was already making modern pressurized semi-monocoque airplanes just like we have today (the B29). All that was needed was the jet engine to create the air transportation system we have now.
We know NASA can make space planes. They lack the engine.
Unfortunately even HRH (His Royal Hairness) B
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Selling you yesterday's future today (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if we subtracted a great percentage of things like weather forecasting, satellite communications, planetary geology, solar technology, aerospace and commercial aviation advancements, awesome pictures of our Universe and other worlds, a growth in understanding of the Universe....
Secondly, I'm not American but if you asked me to list the things I thought were best about your country, NASA high up, if not top of the list; I'll bet it's the same for many other non-Americans, so NASA also buys you good PR. That's something that your country badly needs at the moment. There is far too much unjustified anti-americanism in the world, programs like NASA do more to counter it than your diplomats and politicians could ever do.
Parent
ROI from NASA (Score:5, Informative)
What is the return on the American investment here?
Here is a breakdown by state [wikipedia.org] and here is just some of the technology [wikipedia.org] that has come out of NASA.
All the Trillions of dollars the American tax payer has sent to NASA over the years.
What trillions? The total amount spent on NASA since its inception in 1958 is $592 billion. We spend that much every year [wikipedia.org] on our military.
Parent
Great things will happen in the next 50 years (Score:5, Interesting)
But they won't be done by NASA. NASA has become too politicized, too corporate centered, and above all too risk adverse. The upcoming Orion system is just a rehash of the Saturn-5 with reused Shuttle parts. It breaks no new ground and does not push the envelope in any way. If we've learned anything in the last 50 years it is this: 1) When NASA is not pushing the envelope and taking risks it stagnates, gets sloppy, and then a mission fails. 2) You cannot explore space on the cheap.
NASA is now not pushing the envelope in any way and they are trying to come up with a new launch system, go to the Moon, and on to Mars without spending any more money. They will fail and people will die.
I expect to see people walking on the Moon again and possibly Mars within my lifetime. They will be European and Chinese. America will be remembered by history as the Portuguese of the 20th century. Portugal was the first nation to push out and explore the world by ship. Columbus was Portuguese. The first European to round the southern tip of Africa was Portuguese. Then they stopped and Spain, England and the Dutch took up the effort and built globe spanning empires. The US and NASA are following this same path.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...Spain, England and the Dutch took up the effort and built globe spanning empires.
Not exactly something to be proud of, considering how they did it and all. It just means that the Chinese will be enslaving little green men to toil in their underground sugar cave. And I for one...
Space cake! (Score:2, Funny)
Celebrating by reading... (Score:2)
I'm celebrating those 50 years by reading "Kings of the High Frontier" by V. Koman.
to all those bagging NASA.. (Score:3, Insightful)
NASA continues to be undervalued. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cut funding for NASA, NASA stops doing amazing things, people stop caring about NASA, the peoples representative stop caring about NASA, cut more funding from NASA, rinse, repeat.
I wonder if we subtracted a great percentage of things like weather forecasting, satellite communications, planetary geology, solar technology, aerospace and commercial aviation advancements, awesome pictures of our Universe and other worlds, a growth in understanding of the Universe.... if people would start to care.
NASA was a catalyst behind so much stuff that everyone now takes for granted. They are the root of a giant science and technology tree.
The flaws and bureaucracy were always there. If NASA had funding and direction the flaws wouldn't be the biggest thing we notice.
To bad.
Thank you, Captain Obvious (Score:4, Funny)
"Fifty years ago yesterday, in 1958"
I presume this was for the benefit of any NASA engineers who can't convert between metric and Imperial years?
toast (Score:4, Insightful)
*raises glass*
to the next 50 years
Space shuttle is a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Congrats NASA on 15 years of incredible progress! (Score:3, Insightful)
And not to forget... (Score:3, Insightful)
50 years of aeronautics research on a steadily declining budget:
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/technical_excellence.htm [nasa.gov]
Just $750 million in aerospace funding for FY2007; perhaps it is time to split the ``NA'' from the ``SA'' and give the aeronautics directorate the freedom to pursue its own budget and agenda outside the bondoogle that is the US space programme.
In other words, just turn the clock back those 50 years...
The Glory Days are NOT Over (Score:4, Interesting)
Visiting NASA, a retro experience. (Score:4, Interesting)
I went to a meeting at a NASA facility a few weeks ago, not something I usually do. It felt very 1960s. A conference room with a large fake-wood table, plaques on the walls commemorating events of long ago, and frosted-glass windows for security. On the wall hung three calendars, for the previous, current, and next month, an ancient Government custom. Almost everyone in the room was over 50; many were older.
The meeting was about airspace deconfliction for UAVs, a bureaucratic problem involving the FAA, NASA, and some other agencies. It was all about who to call, what forms to fill out, and what to do when your application wasn't being processed fast enough. The overall feeling was that this was a hard problem, wasn't going to be solved soon, and nobody really cared that much because their budgets were being cut.
Driving across the facility, it seemed a monument to the past. Many buildings, and most of the parking lots, were empty. Here and there an aircraft was set out as a display. The place has an operational airport, but it wasn't used while I was there. A few flyable planes were parked on the ramp, but nothing was going on around them.
Re:NASA is 50. And a big disappointment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent