Forgot your password?
IBM Space Science News

Watch the 1st American Newsreel of Sputnik Launch 133

Posted by timothy
from the pronounced-spoot-nick dept.
MMBK writes with this snippet from "Fifty three years ago this week, the Russians won the space race – or one of its laps – by successfully launching the Sputnik satellite into orbit. This newsreel, the first to report on the launch, recycles older animation about geosynchronic orbits, since all film footage was kept secret (note the very un-Soviet IBM logo on one of the massive computers)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Watch the 1st American Newsreel of Sputnik Launch

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Respect (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08, 2010 @10:46PM (#33843050)

    How about for the first living creature in space? Or the first man in space? Or the first woman in space? Or the first space walk? Or the series of Moon, Venus and Mars landers? Or the automated Moon sample return mission?

    If you have a real grasp of the history of the Space Race, you need a lot more than a "begrudging admoration" for the Soviets.

    Have you read "Space Race" By Deborah Cadbury? You should. Then you should add "War in 2080" to your list.

  • by Pharmboy (216950) on Friday October 08, 2010 @10:51PM (#33843080) Journal

    Or more scary is the internet could have started as a purely commercial venture. Imagine if it had not existed, and AOL had created their own version of the internet. It is kind of what they were trying to do before the open internet kicked their butts. You would have several private nets (like in the 80s) and eventually, the big ones would buy out the small ones. You would have MUCH less content, as the price to enter the market with a website would be dictated by singular corporate interests. Most important is the fact that Free Software wouldn't be as far as it is now, with a more limited distribution method.

    The only reason that the internet is as open as it is now is the US govt. was naive enough to not know what it could really be. Otherwise, they would have tried to control it more.

  • Re:Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pharmboy (216950) on Friday October 08, 2010 @11:24PM (#33843176) Journal

    Probes might do good science, but man alone inspires our kids to become scientists.

    You lack imagination and underestimate children. To think that the only reason a child would want to enter science is because they saw a spaceman on the surface of mars is absurd. Most don't need to be manipulated, only pointed in the right direction. And not everyone in science gets to fly to the moon. Actually, most of the people who get to fly to the moon aren't scientists at all. Some people enter science out of the desire to be part of something bigger than themselves. Humans landing on the moon helps, but if you think that landing rovers that crawl all over the place for months sending back photos, and crashing probes into asteroids, and videoing comets explode over Jupiter isn't freaking cool, then yes, you lack imagination.

  • by painehope (580569) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:01AM (#33843310)

    What's so different between putting a man and a woman in space? I could see the "first child conceived in space" or the "first birth in space", but why does the (astro|cosmo)naut's gender matter in this context?

    Oh, yeah, I forgot. If a "man" (which can refer to either a male or female when used to refer to the species collectively) goes to space, or the moon, or Uranus, it's not fair until we get a woman up there too. /. should run an "Ask Slashdot" article (or at least have a poll) about the extent to which political correctness (known as "PC bullshit" amongst us in the know) has infiltrated the scientific community.

    I'm not saying you're a PC zealot, but saying something like that out of a context where it would make a scientific difference (menstrual cycles, neurobiology, etc.), which gender the lucky bastard who gets to get slung into space ahead of so-and-so many tons and tons of rocket propellant (which hopefully doesn't blow up and kill them, RIP Challenger) just says to me that irrelevant crap is penetrating deeper and deeper into our collective mindsets. Next we're going to have the NAACP suing NASA over their "Equal Opportunity" hiring practices or selection criteria to be an astronaut. I'd be tempted (just to be an asshole) to tell them that we've already sent chimps, but that's probably why I'm not the spokesperson for any large agencies or companies (because I'm a flippant guy with a crude sense of humor who thinks people take themselves too seriously given half a chance).

    Now I'm being too serious and long-winded about a simple point. Time to take my happy pills and go back to drinking bourbon straight...

  • by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Saturday October 09, 2010 @12:44AM (#33843454)

    What's so different between putting a man and a woman in space? I could see the "first child conceived in space" or the "first birth in space", but why does the (astro|cosmo)naut's gender matter in this context?

    I dare you to ask your mother, aunt, or grandmother that question.

  • Hi MR AC! You want references I'll be happy to give them to you even though I'm not the original poster. Here you go []. For those that don't want to TFL I'll summarize a few: The world's most accurate topographical maps thanks to sats, two little girls that wouldn't be alive thanks to severe UV allergies that were saved thanks to NASA designed suits, the LVAD artificial pump, based on the shuttle fuel pumps, the metal in your golf clubs, the suits worn by NASCAR to protect drivers from fire, there is quite a few there and the list is no means exclusive.

    You can say what you will about NASA and the space race, but the research NASA has done and funded has seriously benefited us all. Oh and those flashdrives we all love? IIRC they were originally designed so sats could have non volatile memory that could take the G-forces and not be damaged. Considering I never go anywhere without my thumbdrive and flash MP3 player I have to say Yay NASA!

  • by moonbender (547943) <> on Saturday October 09, 2010 @07:59AM (#33844438)

    There's no question that the research done originally for the purposes of space exploration has benefited humanity in other areas. The question is whether the money spent on it would have resulted in greater good if spent elsewhere. The answer to that question is relevant to the decision where to spend the money in the present and future. Not that I'm saying the two situtations are the same, but: A country could decide to dig the world deepest hole, and that effort would probably result in a number of benefits and accomplishments (besides the hole): lower unemployment, interesting archeology, high durability shovels, redstone []. It's still probably not the best investment.

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.