Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

American Space Age Reaches Fifty Years 101

Posted by Soulskill from the fly-me-to-the-moon dept.
Bryansix brings us a story about the 50th anniversary of the United States' entry into the Space Age. On January 31st, 1958, Explorer 1 became the first U.S. satellite to reach orbit. The New York Times is running a similar feature. "Explorer 1 gave America a chance to recover some of its confidence and prestige after the Sputnik shock, but there was a scientific payoff as well: The data returned by the satellite showed that Earth was not surrounded by a swarm of killer pebbles, as some scientists had feared. However, the cosmic-ray readings hinted at the existence of bands of radiation surrounding the planet - an unexpected result that led to the discovery of the Van Allen Belts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

American Space Age Reaches Fifty Years More

American Space Age Reaches Fifty Years

Comments Filter:
  • This is not the space age.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Neanderthal Ninny ( 1153369 )
      Are you sure we are not in the space age?
      We have a space station in orbit with humans on board.
      We have interplanetary probes investigating other planets in our solar system.
      We are using Global Positioning System to check where we are in the world.
      We use satellite communications to talk, connect to the internet and send other information.
      We use satellite sensing equipment to view our world like cloud patterns, deforestation, and other environmental systems.
      There are many other things that I may have missed b
    • Travelling to space is only old news because finer details such as the melting point of steel are now dictated by FOX news.

      Back in the good old 50's it was a piece of cake to get enough Delta-V without the entire rocket collapsing due to it's steel structure vaporizing.
    • I for one welcome back our old killer pebble overlords.

  • Killer Pebbles (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shag ( 3737 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @08:50PM (#22256578) Journal
    Ironically, of course, after 50 years of the space age, the Earth is surrounded by a growing number of killer bits of space debris - but it's our own fault. :)

  • Orbit? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Bah, no such thing ever happened. We've looked over the edge and seen the turtle. How are you supposed to orbit that?
  • The Bronze Age turns 4000. People care equally about both milestones. GIFs at 11.
  • Satellites are indeed a big deal. But beyond our own orbit, space has turned out rather... empty.

    • ... and pointless (Score:4, Informative)

      by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @09:20PM (#22256856)
      The knowledge obtained by deep space reasearch might be interesting of itself, but that's just infotainment.... pretty thin in terms of actual applicability or importance to people or this planet.

      Let's face it folks: going to the moon in the 1960s was more about politics than it was about science. Had to get one over the commies. Now that the political motive is no longer there it is very hard to justify spending up on a 1960s scale space effort.

      No wonder NASA still has a shuttle fleet that is 25 years old - or half as old as the whole US space effort.

      • Re:... and pointless (Score:4, Interesting)

        by evanbd ( 210358 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @09:25PM (#22256898)
        How is it that Americans have lost their sense of wonder?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dpilot ( 134227 )
          It's not lost, it's just distracted.

          Oooooh, SHINY!

          Didja hear about Britney going to the hospital?

          (Plus there's the fact the P.T. Barnum was a piker compared to today's media.)
        • they just wonder about different things. Sure, most of it is consumer bullshit and Britney-watching but it is still wonder.
          • If you think Britney-watching counts as a sense of wonder, then you have definitely lost yours. You're basically dead from the neck up.
        • How is it that Americans have lost their sense of wonder?

          Because it is always government agencies that are doing space exploration and therefore it becomes on the level of boredom as the national budget or government investigations, people always want to have their say and find out the results but the process is too complex/boring for their tastes and not as action-packed as the newest TV show or movie.
        • Scepticism... they've been lied to/betrayed far too often, and now that there has been so many publicized accidents, its no longer quite so Rocket Man... its also pushed in their(our?) faces every day, you no longer have to sit there and ponder about it, building up a sense of enthusiams... instead its just "ever wondered? well stop, here it is!"... The mood has changed too, Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek was far more playful and adventurious... most of the newer "Outer Space" Sci-Fi is all doom and gloom dy

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by The One and Only ( 691315 ) *
          What makes you think we had it in the first place? The entire Apollo program was just an attempt to fulfill the propaganda speeches of a dead president and poke the Soviets in the eye, and after the first landing no one cared anymore and the program was cut back. Two things Americans have always had is a desire to honor our dead and the urge to poke our enemies in the eye. Sense of wonder? From the generation that grew up fighting the most destructive war in world history? That's a rose-tinted view of histo

        • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

          by britneys 9th husband ( 741556 )
          We do still have a since of wonder, e.g.

          * I wonder where Osama bin Laden is and why we haven't caught him yet.
          * I wonder how the Pentagon managed to "lose" billions of dollars.
          * I wonder how much money that corporation REALLY made, or if they just cooked the books.
          * I wonder if I will be able to afford my next tank of gas.
          * I wonder if this food I'm eating is genetically modified.
          * I wonder how many troops/civilians have really been killed in Iraq.
          * I wonder if Paris will get another DUI.
          * I wonder if I'll
        • We are wondering about different things.
          For example genetic engineering and medicine are now a driving force for all sorts of research. We looked into space, and just saw more space and rocks that are really expensive to get to, now we look into ourselves and see all kinds of possibilities. The excitement over a couple remote controlled cars on Mars shows there is still excitement about space it is only muted right now since it is so expensive we are very limited in what we can do. Eventually technology

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by evanbd ( 210358 )

            I think you're wrong in several ways. People are intested in genetics, semiconductors, and nanotechnology -- but there is no sense of awe, no sense of wonder, at least among the general public. Sure, people care, but they don't *dream*. There's no exploration involved (except in a metaphorical sense).

            Furthermore, space isn't *that* expensive. We could be doing a lot more on not much increase in budget if the willpower was there. And it wouldn't take much willpower and effort to bring the cost down dr

            • People are intested in genetics, semiconductors, and nanotechnology -- but there is no sense of awe, no sense of wonder, at least among the general public. Sure, people care, but they don't *dream*.

              People *dream* about a cure for cancer, people *dream* about all the possibilities of stem cell research, people *dream* about a future society and how robots and computers change our lives.
              Reality has muted the dreams of space exploration, just as they have muted those of flying cars - we haven't given up, but

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by evanbd ( 210358 )

                People wish for a cure for cancer, but it is not the fuel of imaginations. There is no Star Trek about a cure for cancer. That's not to say it's not important or worth working towards; quite the opposite. It just isn't something that inspires wonder and awe and sparks the imagination the way space exploration once did and hopefully will again.

                Space is most emphatically not prohibitively expensive -- not if the goal is for humanity to have a presence in space, and to explore and learn. Sure it is if th

                • People wish for a cure for cancer, but it is not the fuel of imaginations. There is no Star Trek about a cure for cancer.

                  What about "House"? There are plenty of things people imagine in the field of medicine and genetic engineering - what if scenarios about cloning, genetic engineering of superhumans, creation of deadly supervirus, etc.
                  Space in Star Trek is a setting, the same stories could be told underwater ala Seaquest, and in terms of inspiring people CSI has done the same thing.

                  Space is most emphatic

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by evanbd ( 210358 )

                    I don't think House and CSI are really the same thing, but I figure I've made my point in that regard.

                    The cost per pound to launch things has come down, but only slightly. The reason is most emphatically not that we need technological breakthroughs. The energy required is large, as you say, but that's only a very small fraction of the cost (for most launchers, the propellant costs are comparable to the accounting errors). What's needed is simple: someone has to decide that they want to build a launcher

        • How is it that Americans have lost their sense of wonder?

          It happened when LIFE Magazine closed its doors and Chesley Bonestell laid down his brushes.

      • "going to the moon in the 1960s was more about politics than it was about science"

        Right, but to be precise it was a political chess move that cornered the Soviets into a position where they didn't have any easy responses. That's why Kennedy wanted something that was "hard" to do. At the time, Mars would have been impossible, and Venus is still impossible (to land on). So the Soviets were basically trapped as far as taking any larger "leap" for mankind. The largest possible leap had already been taken.

        Th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by vux984 ( 928602 )
          That's why Kennedy wanted something that was "hard" to do. At the time, Mars would have been impossible, and Venus is still impossible (to land on). So the Soviets were basically trapped as far as taking any larger "leap" for mankind. The largest possible leap had already been taken.

          Manned space station? [The Russians actually accomplished this one.]
          Manned orbit of Venus (even without landing this would be a technical feat)
          Manned lunar base?

          I agree landing on the moon was a big deal and tough to top, but th
          • Sure, there are other targets that could have impressed people somewhat, but in terms of scientific street-cred, I think it is hard to beat Sputnik and the moon shot.

            Launching a satellite for the first time not only captured the public's imagination, a scientist in 1957 would look at this Sputnik phenomenon and conclude that it presented a pretty airtight proof that the Soviets could build an ICBM to reach any spot on earth.

            A moon shot implies that too, but because it is so exacting, it further implies that

      • Re:... and pointless (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Admiral Ag ( 829695 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @10:23PM (#22257290)
        I don't know about that. Going to the moon is probably the outstanding achievement of our species. If you wanted to ask why it was done, there are lots of reasons, the most enduring one being "because it was there".No-one gives a crap about the Cold War now, but the moon continues to fascinate. It's probably the first time there had been a global awareness of our planet as an organic whole and our small place in the universe. There's a reason why enivronmental pamphlets tend to use the "Whole Earth" or "Apollo 8 Sunrise" shots. All in all we make ourselves better people when we do things like exploration, art and science.

        It's not as if Apollo was particularly expensive either. Sure, 25 billion dollars (1960s) sounds real expensive, but given there were 200 million Americans at the time, the cost works out to a bit over 10 bucks a year per person over the 10 years of the program. That's probably not much more than a kid's pocket money each to watch arguably the greatest film ever shot (and it was real!!).

        It's certainly a lot less than the warmongering sacks of shit spent on 'Nam, which achieved fuck all other than killing millions of people, poisoning vast areas of land, sowing mass social discord and ruining the lives of young men.

        I'm convinced that historians will look back on Apollo as the high point of our civilization, before it sank into selfish decadence. When I was a kid, everyone wanted to be an astronaut. Now they want to be a rap star with guns, bling and mansions full of semi-naked hookers. /get off my lawn

        • Re:... and pointless (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Sanat ( 702 ) on Friday February 01, 2008 @01:33AM (#22258330)
          I'm convinced that historians will look back on Apollo as the high point of our civilization

          I believe we are only a few (3 to 4) years away from being patriotic and supporting America like it was done in the 50's and 60's. Not that we will be at war, but rather true peace. We will have our heroes back and have a bunch of new ones as well. I predict that some individuals will become heroes who even post here on Slashdot for i have read a lot of very thought provoking messages over the last 10 years.

          I visualize peace and cooperation in the world beginning to happen at an amazing rate. Perhaps each country will have their share of heroes too... I would be all for that.

          • Dude. Whatever it is you're on, I want some too.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Tikkun ( 992269 )
            Whenever there is either a: a chance for people to make money, or b: a chance to honor whatever god they worship, humans will generally take the opportunity to kill (or send other people to do it for them).

            There can only be peace when we are ruled by logical, thoughtful and considerate leaders who do not have to face the wrath of the people. I for one welcome our new robotic overlords.

        • Going to the moon is probably the outstanding achievement of our species.

          No, the microprocessor was. But the moon is perhaps the most enduring.

        • When I was little I too wanted to be an astronaut. I made the mistake of telling other kids, and from then on I was a nerd.

      • Ya, its not like the moon has large quantities of silicon (think solar panels) and oxygen (think fuel) sitting in a relatively low gravity well with easy access to space-borne assembly platforms for all kinds of goodies, including stuff that's easier to build in micro-g or vacuum.

        There are many more reasons to go to space than to look cool, and its not just science either.

        Aikon-

      • Bahaha, there are rocks floating around up there with millions and billions of tons of iron and other raw materials. One single rock (can't recall the name now) was estimated to have five tons of iron ore for every man, woman and child on earth. Add to that we have basically infinite energy to fuel space industries in the form of the sun. So, if you can't see the benefit to continued space exploration and trying to get to space more cheaply, thats fine, others will be eating that lunch!

    • Actually more automated launches are done each year than was done during any 2-3 year period of the 60s,70's, and 80's. The reason is that in the 60's, it was just USSR and America that were doing launches of any size. In the 70's, China Kind of joined it, but not really. 80's was the same. Now in this decade, we have America, Russia, China, EU, India, and about to have Isreal, Brazil, and a number of private launches. I suspect that within 5 years, we will see more launches each year than was done during
  • American Space Age Reaches Fifty Years

    But in Soviet Russia, Space Age Reaches 51 Years:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_1 [wikipedia.org]

  • Russian space age reaches 51! (Score:3, Funny)

    by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @09:21PM (#22256862)
    Drat, foiled again! Savour your victory while you can, because next year will be different!
    • The American space age could already be at 52, you know.

      I wonder why nobody has pointed out that Explorer could have been launched late in 1956, were it not for the vanity of the US Navy, who insisted that the first US space rocket should be an all-American affair (Vanguard). The Juno rocket had been developed by the US Army with the help of von Braun and his Peenemünde team in 1955-56, and was sitting for over a year in storage until after the Sputnik shock and failed Vanguard launches.
  • Man, the US space program at 50 ain't what it used to be! Now we're senile, geriatric and drive around in diapers (and 30+-year-old shuttles). Really hurts to see that, even worse than waching an old, lame Ozzy slobbering on himself in his living room. Oh, we could bring both back to 1969 when they ruled!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cybrpnk2 ( 579066 )
      Interesting story from NASAwatch [nasawatch.com]: "The planned launch of 50 Juno I model rockets from Cape Canaveral to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Explorer I launch has now been cancelled by the station's wing commander. Although the CCAFS has no quams about launching Deltas, Atlas and other massive rockets, they go into a complete tither when it comes down to launching a 12 inch long model rocket made of balsa wood and paper weighing just under 2 oz. The intended launching was to be used as a fund raiser for

  • December 14 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by evanbd ( 210358 ) on Thursday January 31, 2008 @09:23PM (#22256888)
    December 14, 1972 is the anniversary I pay the most attention to. I sincerely hope we go back.
    • Last Apollo 17 EVA?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by evanbd ( 210358 )
        Indeed. The date of the last footprints on the Moon.
      • Incidentally, this is also the date of the first (and last) taxpayers-funded game of golf on the moon. A significant event that helped reevaluate the usefulness of the manned lunar program.

        • Re:erm? (Score:4, Informative)

          by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Friday February 01, 2008 @12:16AM (#22257962) Homepage
          Nope. The golf player was Alan Shepard on Apollo 14. Apollos 15-17 did a lot more science, they had the Rover to travel further, landing technique was where they could land more interesting places, and on the last mission they finally landed someone (Harrison Schmitt) who was trained as a geologist first, not a test pilot.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Vectronic ( 1221470 )
      "the next planned human lunar landing Orion 17 will also be by NASA, and is planned for 2019, but no later than 2020"

      Quoth Wikipedia.

      It would also freshen up the conspiracy theories, which would be a nice change..."nah, they did it all in LightWave, its not real"

    • I sincerely hope we go back.
      Well, you won't be going - and neither will I. So 'we' won't be going at all. If sending another human is regarded as a substitute for going yourself, then so is sending a robot. Meaning there is no reason to send a human, rather than a robot, to achieve whatever goal there is to achieve on the moon.

      • Re:December 14 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by evanbd ( 210358 ) on Friday February 01, 2008 @04:09AM (#22258946)

        I beg to disagree on all counts.

        Firstly, I believe my odds of going are significantly better than the average person's, due to my career choice. Still not good, but way better than average.

        Secondly, sending a robot isn't as good as sending a person, even if only for purely sentimental reasons -- which are not without value. And if you say they are, then I ask very simply -- what is wrong with you? Have you no sense of wonder? No drive to see humanity explore?

        And thirdly, robots are *not* substitutes for humans when it comes to doing basic science. The MER robots do in a day what a trained geologist could do in a couple minutes. The problem is that we're too modest in what we ask for from our missions. If we started by asking what a trained scientist could do given a week or two, and wrote that up as the mission objectives, you'd rapidly discover that no robot we could imagine building in the near future could complete the mission.

        What kind of geek are you? How can you not look at the sky and want to *go* there? If you truly tihnk robots can do anything you want done up there, then I believe you have misplaced your imagination.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          What kind of geek are you? How can you not look at the sky and want to *go* there? If you truly tihnk robots can do anything you want done up there, then I believe you have misplaced your imagination.

          Maybe he's a geek with a driving passion for robotics? One who wants to improve robots as much as you want to explore?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by evanbd ( 210358 )
            The question isn't "why do you care more about robots." There are a million things that can take center stage for any person. The question is, Why no sense of wonder and curiosity about the universe? Why would you look at the night sky and be so uninterested as to settle for a few photographs, when we can do so much more? There are multitudes of technological fields I'd love to see progress in, and think that research effort is worth spending. Once there was a sense of wonder among the general populace
          • Guys, listen up. There is no event in the progress of science that does not pass through a human's imagination first. Imagination is important. If you think otherwise well, you're in the wrong blog. Go study accounting.

        • What kind of geek are you? How can you not look at the sky and want to *go* there?

          A political geek, an economics geek, or a geek of a different category of interest?

          C'mon, there are more flavors of geek than there are flavors of Baskin Robbins. If I were the right kind of geek, I would even try to catalogue all the types.

          Never mind that a geek might be claustrophobic or even agoraphobic, both of which might preclude space travel.

          /Today I'm an *argumentative* geek. :)

        • Firstly, I believe my odds of going are significantly better than the average person's, due to my career choice. Still not good, but way better than average.

          The odds of you going comparative to someone in India or Namibia are irrelevant. If you are not already on the list of astronauts for flight (which stretches longer than the remaining SS missions) then the chances of you getting on the ship to the moon (if there IS one, looking less likely every day) are close enough to zero to be sensibly discarded. We can almost discard the mission itself - there really is no public sentiment for it, and no reason beyond sentiment for going. Manned missions are a moderni

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by evanbd ( 210358 )

            If I go to space, it won't be through NASA -- my odds on that are no better than average. I won't go into details except to reiterate that my odds aren't good even so, and it will be a while if I do. There exists a set of not-implausible optimistic assumptions that has me getting a ride to space, which is more than most people can say. I'm young and patient; I'll take what I can get, for now.

            Of *course* there are better ways to draw broad maps of a planet than to have a person walk it. You are aware t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jcnnghm ( 538570 )
        "Our God-given curiosity will force us to go there ourselves, because in the final analysis, only Man can evaluate the Moon in terms understandable to other men."

        Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
  • Through half a century, and quadrillions of miles served, the NASA logo [google.com] is still cool.

  • Flat spin (Score:5, Informative)

    by Media Withdrawal ( 704165 ) * on Thursday January 31, 2008 @10:22PM (#22257276)
    One of the less well-known aspects of Explorer 1 was how it surprised controllers by changing its axis of spin. It was launched spinning about its theoretically stable long axis like a drill bit, but due to mechanical energy dissipation in its flexing antennas, it ended its first orbit in a flat spin--"like a juggling club" according to this book [amazon.com], which points out that the same would have happened to O'Neill colonies without constant dynamical control.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AJWM ( 19027 )
      which points out that the same would have happened to O'Neill colonies without constant dynamical control.

      Which just goes to show that the author didn't do his research on O'Neill colonies. O'Neill was a physicist, he knew the issues and addressed them (two cylinders tethered together, the agricultural ring, etc image here [wikipedia.org]). And, of course, they do have constant dynamical control.

      Just because some artists and Babylon 5 get it wrong doesn't mean the physicists did.

      • Which just goes to show that the author didn't do his research on O'Neill colonies. O'Neill was a physicist, he knew the issues and addressed them (two cylinders tethered together, the agricultural ring, etc image here).

        Actually, the author mentions all this. Besides, O'Neil was a particle physicist, not a rigid-body dynamicist, and even the mighty experts screw up now and then, as Explorer 1's flat spin illustrates.

        And, of course, they do have constant dynamical control.

        My original point exactly (

  • The data returned by the satellite showed that Earth was not surrounded by a swarm of killer pebbles, as some scientists had feared.

    It is now.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • JPL Amateur Radio Commemorative Event (Score:4, Informative)

    by dtmos ( 447842 ) on Friday February 01, 2008 @03:40AM (#22258846)
    To celebrate this anniversary, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Amateur Radio Club, W6VIO, is offering a commemorative Explorer I QSL card for each contact made through February 4th. See their operating schedule [pitfall.org] for times and frequencies of operation.
  • - Van Braun thought he was capable of send up a satellite in late 1940s, but the US military didnt want to then.
    - An earlier launch at Vandenburg failed. Two branches of the military were competing, but the Vandenburg one got first dibs. Van Braun kept a "skunk works" going with JPL just in case the other failed.
    - The US was afraid of the legal aspects of orbiting a satellite over another country without their permission. That may have delayed the US effort.
    - Eisenhower was an active participant in
  • And I was pissed off...

    I was stuck in Huntsville for a day following a meeting, and had planned to go to the Rocket Museum.

    Of course, it was closed for the celebration.

    Go figure.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close