Apollo 11's 35th Anniversary 318
colonist writes "35 years ago, on July 16, 1969, Apollo 11 began to achieve the goal set by the late President Kennedy: '...before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth'. On July 20, Michael Collins orbited the moon in the command module Columbia while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended to the lunar surface in the lunar module Eagle. The descent engine was halfway through its final 12-minute burn when a yellow caution light lit up on the display of the lunar module computer. [ARMSTRONG: Program Alarm... It's a 1202. ALDRIN: 1202. (Pause) ARMSTRONG: (To Buzz) What is it? Let's incorporate (the landing radar data). (To Houston) Give us a reading on the 1202 Program Alarm.] Buzz Aldrin's recollection: 'Back in Houston, not to mention on board the Eagle, hearts shot up into throats while we waited to learn what would happen. We had received two of the caution lights when Steve Bales the flight controller responsible for LM computer activity, told us to proceed... We received three or four more warnings but kept on going. When Mike, Neil, and I were presented with Medals of Freedom by President Nixon, Steve also received one. He certainly deserved it, because without him we might not have landed.' Fred Martin describes the incidents, and Peter Adler looks at the design of the system."
When I look back at 35 years.... (Score:2, Insightful)
35 years... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not to say that NASA hasn't done some great things since or recently (Hubble, Pathfinder, Opportunity and Spirit, Voyager, Pioneer all spring to mind immediately), but there hasn't been a significant excursion into space by mankind since the last Apollo mission.
Well, maybe the ISS counts for something in that regard. *shrug*
Re:Happy birthday (Score:0, Insightful)
Your post wasnt offtopic. Mine is!
Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
...the greatest achievement man has done yet - I was 10 at the time, and can still remember looking up to the moon and thinking men were walking about on it
Nick
Church of SubGenius (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting to the moon was an unbelievably complex and difficult thing to do. in retrospect it seems doable since we know it's been done but keep in mind that this was the first time this was all done.
Keeping a system of mechanical, electrical and information systems working together flawlessly is beyond most engineering feats today. If a single thing went wrong back then it could have meant the failure of the mission and loss of crew not to mention international shame. Some of the best minds in the world worked in this so to call them dumb is both ignorant and an insult to their effort.
ok, I'm done venting.
Re:35 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. The ISS is a dead end and an expensive one at that. I defy anyone to come up with a valid reason for ISS that doesn't involve training ants to soft tiny screws in space. It is not a stepping stone to the Moon, Mars or elsewhere, it is not an important technological midpoint between LEO and planetary or lunar excursions, and it has most certainly been done before. What there is go be gained by doing it again has never been clear.
a matter of focus (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slack In Space! (Score:3, Insightful)
"each time a 1201 or 1202 alarm appeared, the computer rebooted, restarted the important stuff, like steering the descent engine and occurred."
It's a good job they weren't rebooting any modern system + OS, otherwise they'd have left just another inconsequential moon crater rather than footprints.
Re:When I look back at 35 years.... (Score:2, Insightful)
And marvel at what was, and think back of what we thought could be, and see what is, I ask simply WHY?
Flamebait? I simply meant that there was so much awe at the accomplishment, and the promise of a manned Mars mission not much later, or a permanent moon colony, but that when the entire moon project was acrapped after 1972, and we relegated ourself to "shuttles", I am extremely disappointed. Why is that flamebait?
Why it wouldn't happen today... (Score:3, Insightful)
For those of you who are non-American, let me explain: In America, we have become SO polarized that the moment a democrat says something, a republican immediately says "why it's wrong/why he's REALLY doing it for some evil purpose" - and vice versa. I guarentee you, Al Franken has already decided that whatever Bush will do in 2006 (if elected) is already wrong, EVEN BEFORE HEARING IT! Same way that republicans ALWAYS said clinton was wrong (When Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998, Republicans said it was only to distract us from Monica). And yes, Rush already agrees with whatever Bush agrees with and hates Hilary Clinton's Senate bills even before they're presented. This goes both ways.
Today, had president X said that we have to unite as a nation and go to Mars by 2016, the other side would immediately say "It's stupid/useless/waste of money/just a distraction from (problem Y)."
Was Kennedy's space-race politically motivated? Yeah. Is it a good thing it happened? From my point of view... definately. Science doesn't know politics. Martian soil doesn't really care about WMDs or Gay Marriage. I hope that the next leader to make such a bold statement is met with some sort of unity, and not bickering. (But it won't).
As Chris Rock said in his latest comedy special about partisan politics: "Anyone who decides on an issue... before hearing the issue... is abolutely f*@&ing crazy!"
Re:a matter of focus (Score:5, Insightful)
I will, however agree that the space program (including the much-maligned ISS) does contribute to the development of new products. However, we need to stop shouldering such a vast majority of the financial responsibility for it.
Re:35 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why it wouldn't happen today... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm.. Have you ever worked in the beltway at organizations like CDC, HHS, NIH? Remember scientist need money to do R&D, where does money come from: budgets. Regardless if you are public or private, the budget cycle is the most politizied process. Remember a common definition of politics is who gets what when and where.
You're dead on about the division in America. We're exactly 50 / 50 between the sides. I actually think it is a good thing, but that is another post.
Re:35 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
While you don't see it every day, even on failed projects, NASA has been advancing the core sciences behind the space program. Did you know, for example, that they're making good progress on solid rocket boosters with ISPs near that of H2/O2 liquid rockets, and much greater density? (Alane - stabilized aluminum hydride). Are you familiar with NASA's materials technologies developed fro the shuttle - not just the "tiles", but all kinds of other systems for radiating heat, the efficient turbopumps and other technologies in the SSMEs, and even ways of applying corrosion-resistant linings for the nozzles through atomic-level gradients of materials so that they don't need to be reapplied each time? Even completely failed projects, such as the X-33, had some major tech advances that occurred in the process of development.
NASA has been working on huge amounts of basic technology behind the scenes. Yes, if you give them an extra couple billion, they could blow it in a big showy "We did it!" event if you wanted. They could rebuild another Generic Big Rocket(tm) and launch huge amounts of payload off the planet for (insert mission here). But I'm happy to see them advancing science instead of just repeating the past on a larger scale, personally.
Not that major missions don't advance science; it's just about cost efficiency.
sad stop on NASA space center tour (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad isn't it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now when we fail, we look back, assign blame, postpone, assign blame, and postpone some more.
Re:35 years... (Score:4, Insightful)
Beyond that, yeah, it's really just a political tool, both domestically and internationally.
Re:Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:35 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:35 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, most of the budget goes towards an army of NASA employees and contractors, to keep the Shuttle and ISS going. The real revolution in space travel is getting stuff to orbit inexpensively, and NASA hasn't done much for that lately because they went from one expensive expendable booster that could manage a few flights per year (Saturn V) to a psuedo-reusable booster that could manage a few flights per year (Shuttle), except that the Shuttle carries less payload per flight and blows up more often, without actually reducing the cost to orbit any.
The only good part about this is, generally by playing different branches of the government off of each other and with the funding of a few folk who made a mint on computers who watched too much Star Trek, some pieces of private industry have been able to do things that NASA has not -- bring down the cost to launch.
And, while Burt Rutan / Paul Allen in the news right now, there's also John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace (paid for by Doom and Quake) and SpaceX (Paid for by Paypal) waiting in the wings, too.
Re:35 years... (Score:4, Insightful)
"My beef is that all the nuclear science and atomic research was established with the Manhattan Project and the first A-Bomb. Further development would have been done as part of a Mars mission or further Moon ones. Nuclear power stations were done right because they had a clear goal and had to figure out the details in between. Randomly developing technologies is very inefficient if your mindset is 'this will be useful for something someday'. That was the justification for nuclear fusion for the most part."
Except as part of funding nuclear fusion, we have grade A laser technologies. We now have laser accelerated fission technologies, and smaller, faster, more efficient lasers. LASIK, anyone? We have aircraft mounted lasers, and laser diodes too.
Yes, ISS is expensive. Yes it has no value TODAY. Yes it's political. Yes it draws flak. But it isn't useless. It isn't worthless. It will have ramifications in 100 years we can't predict today. Yes, so would a Moon base or Mars base; but that is why we need to go forward.
My question is if we had a Moon base instead of the ISS, would you be the kind to complain,
"My beef is all the low-G and survivability stuff was established with Apollo and Mercury missions. Further development would have been done as part of a space station. Apollo was done right because they had a clear goal and had to figure out the details in between. Randomly developing technologies is very inefficient if your mindset is "this will be useful for something someday". That was the justification for the Moonbase for the most part."
Re:35 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remind me never to work for you....
And the valid reason for "going to the moon" was? (Score:2, Insightful)
What the ISS *is* good for (if they'd ever fund it to allow it to be) would be a good launch point for probes and satellites. Assuming you can get the shuttle program back on-line, you'd just lift up the parts you need, assemble at the station and launch from there. Surely that has to be cheaper than building a one-shot custom use heavy lift rocket to get a satellite into orbit.
Re:Bad comparison... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:35 years... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Once it is determined that humans can survive in space for 7-9 months
It's not that simple, even from the physiology alone. First off, there's the issue of disease and long-term health effects (both microbial and non-microbial disorders). Secondly, there's, due to the fact that you have no resupply on a Mars mission, the ability to live off of the craft alone for long periods. Space-based muscle deterioration (and how to prevent it) are still poorly understood, and there are many experiments ongoing to try and help reduce the problems associated with it. There are all sorts of other things - just name how many you want me to discuss.
In short, if you think an experiment is wasteful, name the experiment. If not, don't complain about what you don't understand.
> The most direct way to get prepared to go to Mars is to go there
No, that's the most direct way to toss 400 billion dollars into an incinerator. Space travel is unbelievably difficult, dangerous, and deadly.
Brief period in time (Score:1, Insightful)
Now a very few living people have walked on the moon.
By the time I die we will once more live in a world where no living person has walked on the moon.
Re:Pretty amazing if you ask me... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's truly ironic.. (Score:3, Insightful)