Moon Mission Anniversary

SEWilco writes: "As NASA points out, Friday May 25 2001 is the 40th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's speech which set the goal to place men on the Moon within 10 years. Of course, we did land on the Moon in a few places. Although the small spacecraft could only carry two people to the surface, there is a group picture (from this silly page). Few people considered that we might abandon it once we got there." mikeraz points out that the picture of the day is a Saturn V rocket, with plenty of other links too.

Comments

FOX Special

[sharkey]

This Sunday on FOX, immediately following "Malcolm in the Middle," FOX will air its new, shockingly revealing investigative report, "Did John F. Kennedy Really Think We Have A Moon, Did He Ever Give A Speech That Mentioned The Moon, And Do We Really Have A Moon Or Is It Just Another NASA Hoax?"

Notable guests providing testimony wil be some invetigative reporter somewhere, a man who used to pull weeds outside the Oval Office, and some guy that made a camera purchased by JFK.

SEE: The evidence NASA doesn't want you to see!
SEE: Our gardener provide observations that THE MOON IS NOT ALWAYS THERE AT NIGHT!

Only on FOX!

--

for those who need convincing...

[tcyun]

It has been posted here before, but the site Bad Astronomy has some great information on combatting the people who believe that the landings were faked. Most of the information is laid out in a good manner that is easy to understand, partic for third parties you point to the site.

And then...

[crashnbur]

And then there are the conspiracy theorists that do not believe that we ever landed on the moon. And then there are the Apollites that wish we were still sending people to the moon. And then there are people like me that think we should work out our problems on this rock before we send them elsewhere.

Maybe Agent Smith was right... Maybe we are a virus.

Tidal forces, not simple gravity

[TeknoHog]

The earth's gravity pulling on the moon as it orbits will slow it down over time, until it eventually reaches a stable resonance point (in this case 1:1)

In fact, gravity simply pulling on Moon would have no effect, if there were no complications from tidal forces. This is easier to understand in the case of Earth:

The gravitational attraction of Sun on Earth is stronger on the side closer to Sun. Therefore, the oceans bulge towards Sun. (The same thing happens due to Moon even more notably.) Because Earth rotates at a rate different from its orbiting around Sun, the bulge moves relative to Earth. But there are dissipative forces, i.e. viscosity of the water, which gradually slows down this relative motion. Hence in a very distant future, Earth will have permanent dark and light sides.

The same effect can occur even when there is no ocean (there may have been some on Moon), because planets are not made of infinitely rigid/elastic material. (Elastic meaning that there are no viscous, dissipative forces.) It is generally believed that this process has slowed down the rotation of Moon to match its orbiting around Earth.

--
I hit the karma cap, now do I gain enlightenment?

History of the Space Program

[Alien54]

Here is a page that gives many (not all) of the key documents involved in the history of the space program from the 1950s to the present.

Wonderful stuff to pick through.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

This saddens me.

[fmaxwell]

If only we had continued our space program... When 2001: A Space Odyssey was released, the space travel, moon colonization, and missions throughout the solar system seemed only reasonable assumptions given the progress we had made. We have yet to land a man on any extraterrestrial body other than the moon and even that has not been done in almost 30 years.

Re:This saddens me.

[McSpew]

I'm a huge proponent of the US space program, but let's face it. The enormous cost of sending a man to the moon should be enough to show us that the US would not have bothered if there had not been the intense competition for propaganda rights with the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union had not existed in the '50s and '60s, there would not have been a US lunar program then.

Why am I saying this? Because it's true. Today, the cost to put anything into low Earth orbit is about $10,000 per pound. Until that cost falls by a factor of 10 or more, NASA will continue to scratch for the money to conduct any sort of space exploration and the moon and Mars will be out of reach for manned missions.

Kubrick and Clarke looked at the rate of progress of space exploration in the '50s and '60s and extrapolated that by now, we'd have giant orbiting space stations that rotated to produce artificial gravity. They imagined we'd have the wherewithal to send an enormous manned spacecraft to Jupiter (Saturn in the book).

So, why don't we have any of those things? Ironically, it has less to do with current launch costs than with the economics of demand for commercial space launch and what's known as a "demand plateau." A recent study showed that demand for space launch capability is in a plateau region where reducing costs will not significantly increase demand until costs fall by a factor of 20 or more. In other words, there's a disincentive for commercial launch companies to reduce launch costs unless they can radically slash launch costs.

And don't even get me started on the dangers of orbital debris....

Re:This would be really interesting

[fmaxwell]

If we had actually landed on the moon. Even with all the coverups and "debunkings" that have come out to prove that we in fact went to the moon, there is little solid evidence to support such a preposterous notion.

You are a moron. There are thousands of photos, 382kg of lunar samples, testimony from thousands of people involved in the lunar missions, from astronauts to engineers at private firms that built the spacecraft. If that's not enough, have someone read to you from this link: Bad Astronomy

If you are still unconvinced, please get a vasectomy or your tubes tied (your doctor can tell you which procedure is appropriate for you).

Pig Capsule

[blair1q]

No history of the USA space program is complete without acknowledging the brave and selfless contribution of our porcine fellow travellers.

--Blair

Already done.

[s20451]

these days no politician would dare make a speech like JFK did.

Already done. President Bush (the senior) challenged the nation to land a man on Mars by 2015. Neil Armstrong issued a similar challenge a year ago on the 30th anniversary of the lunar landings.

Unfortunately, that's not enough. In 1961 there was an unusual combination of a charismatic leader (Kennedy), a clear goal (the moon), and a hated arch-rival (the USSR) to generate the required political will.

If single stage to orbit technologies become a reality, thereby dramatically reducing launch costs, my opinion is that we will see privately funded expeditions to the moon within our lifetimes, much like we see privately funded expeditions to Everest, the south pole, and elsewhere today. NASA be damned.

ah, lunacy...

[spacefem]

This was back when people seemed to like government and whatever goals it set, there's such a debate about space exploration these days no politician would dare make a speech like JFK did.

Someone famous, powerful, or beautiful needs to outline the benefits of doing space things, outside of the fact that the pictures are pretty, am I right? I don't fit the above mentioned criteria, otherwise I'd make known the technological advances NASA has brought about trying to improve our space-lives. America has lost it's idealism, that's no surprise, it's just nice to look back and know that the time period we had it in is still admired.

Until then, my generation has to wait for something like this to capture our imagination again.