Slashdot Mirror
Apollo 11 Launch Tower Rescue Effort
SaveTheLUT writes "Florida Today has this story about the disposal of the last remaining Apollo Launch Tower - the one which launched Apollo 11 to the Moon in July 1969. The campaign to save the tower has also appeared on InsideKSC, CollectSpace, Space.com and there is to be a TV article about it on Central Florida News 13 channel on Monday morning. The Space Restoration Society has created an on-line Petition which has already managed to gather more than 2000 signatures to save this piece of America's history since NASA announced the disposal of the tower early last week."
Did you know that there was more computing power in the original Palm Pilot than was used in Apollo 11 to get the astronauts to the moon? I think that's pretty cool. I mean, they were able to NAVIGATE OUTER SPACE with less technology than we use to KEEP A DATEBOOK.
So I'm thinkin', can it run Linux?
I think that all of Man's great erections should be cherished.
Cut it into small pieces, 5" square, auction them on ebay. It will raise money and give millions of people a piece of history. I wish someone'd done this with the Berlin Wall, with Sadam's statue, and with the wreckage of the WTC. Come to think of it, it'd be a cool way of disposing of other problems too. Care to buy a small piece of Daryl?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I was flying into Melbourne Florida airpost last week and honestly Cape Canaveral appears barely developed. Hard to imagine they need the room that bad.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I would rather see NASA devote money to building new towers and new space crafts that will get us to deep space with large payloads, then to see them spending money on saving this.
If these groups are truely interested in this, They should put their money where their mouths are.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There's just over 2000 signatures on their petition. If there aren't ten times that many by lunch, I'm going to lose all faith in Slashdot.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Looks like the damn thing is already disassembled. Looks like the horse is already out of the barn. Space history is super-cool, but I find the spacecraft and human history to be much more compelling than all the nuts and bolts of the logistics. I guess I'm not a geek as I don't find this mostly-disassembled toxic tower to be very compelling.
The program has been dormant for so many years that a lot of the infrastructure, institutional knowledge, etc, has been lost. NASA will essentially have to start from scratch. Sean
The capsule is already in the smithsonian, so I think this is a bit overboard. Honestly, what is the advantage in saving the tower? If they pay for removing it and putting it somewhere else, then I say go for it. If it'll cost NASA more to save than destroying it, I say 'bring on the TNT!'
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
If they don't want it, don't just bitch and moan - pony up some cash (collectively, presumably) and buy the damn thing. We shouldn't force government agencies to keep large, expensive, hazardous equipment around for notstaligic reasons. That's what museums are for. Its the same with some "classic" buildings - for example, when the Dr. Pepper plant in Dallas was going to be knocked down by a developer, he offered to sell it back the "outraged community" for the bargain price that he paid for it - so that the new owner could do with it as they saw fit and, presumably, not demolish it. There were no takers. Funny how when its someone's money rather than just their signature, that support for these vague initiatives just dries up...
Besides, what would you do with it? Other than try hard to keep your liability insurance paid up while not letting anyone get to close to it, of course...
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
It's one thing to save the Saturn V, or the Apollo crew module, but why does anyone find the tower significant? It's a bit like trying to save the construction elevator for the Empire State Building, long after the building is gone.
I understand that the tower has certain sentimental value to the astronauts. After all, their craft sacrificed themselves to send astronauts into orbit, or to the moon. The tower is all that's left of those glorious machines. But isn't that like keeping a death grip on a ring or hair locket long after a spouse has died? Physiologically, one has to accept the fact and move on. Doing otherwise would only be detrimental to the individual.
Shouldn't the astronauts let go of the tower and spend their time instead promoting one of the hundreds of high energy propulsion methods available? Wouldn't the best testament of the Saturn V be a thrust into space rather than shaking our heads and saying, "it was fun while it lasted?"
NERVA, GCNR, Nuclear Salt Water, Orion, Daedalus, Fusion rockets, terrawatt laser launchers, etc., etc., etc. We have the technology for crying out loud. Let's make the Saturn program proud. Let's go forward!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm all for saving American History, but this shouldn't be NASA's job. This sort of this is the responsibility of institutions like the Smithsonian. Nasa should be spending its money on new projects. I know I'm nostalgic about the glory days of the space race, but eventually NASA will become overburdened with this sort of thing.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
The article says the thing is causing some serious environmental hazards. I know they keep the Saturn moon rockets, and the other rockets sitting around in the visitor's centres at Kennedy, and here at Johnson in Houston, but it looks less an issue of space and more of keeping the thing from poisoning the land around it. If a third party wanted to house and restore the thing, that's one issue, but I don't think it warrants just signing a petition and telling NASA "Hey, find a way to save this." NASA has already been under so many budget cuts, I don't blame them one bit for dismantling it. The structure will always live on in photographs and film, and it's not as if it will ever launch again.
I think a better testament to the history of space exploration would be to quit using the 20 year old shuttle fleet and start doing some real innovation again, rather than hanging on to a big chunk of rusting steel and paint to make a monument that honestly, not too many people will even bother to go see.
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
there are some things that are just not worth saving,
especially when they cost many millions of dollars. This
is like somebody doing spring cleaning and refusing to
toss out that favorite letter jacket from high school.
Think about it: $40 mio is what they want to raise.
Yet two (failed) Mars probes - Polar Lander and Climate
Orbiter cost $165 and $125 mio. Its time we stop all this
nostalgia bs - there is plenty of video, tech specs and
what not already. If you want to contribute something to
the space efforts, make it something that pushes things
*FORWARD* not back.
I've been "pad hopping" down at KSC. I've seen most of the rusty run-down and abandonded launch facilities. The only thing worth saving is the Apollo 1 memorial there. It's not available for public viewing, but that may change someday. It's a small display case with photos letters and news clippings off in one corner of the pad. The rest of the pad is as bad as most of the others. There's not much worth saving at any of them. It's just a lot of rusted metal and concrete.
Get rid of the thing. The whole areas waterways are so cool. The banana river, etc. Don't let it contaminate the water. Spare the redfish, sea trout, manatees and dolphins. It's amazing drifting down the nearby barge canal by the canaveral locks and watching the dozens of dolphins feed and manatees bob up and down. The place doesn't need any more contamination and pollution than it already has. It a beautiful span of land and water. Have you ever seen wild boars on the shorelines before sunrise?
Let NASA sterilize it and scrap it. Don't sign the petition.
An Environmental Impact Statement, including assessment of impact to known or potential historic resources, will need to be filed if any of the following are true:
- Federal funding will be utilized
- A federal permit will be required
- The site sits on federal land
It seems to me that at least two of the above apply.If the tower is deemed to be eligible (or on!) the National Register of Historic Places, steps will need to be taken to 'mitigate' the impact to this structure. The preferred way is to leave it in place (eliminates impact entirely); alternatively, a HABS (Historic American Building Survey) Recordation might suffice, wherein a comprehensive documentary effort, including the drafting of detailed architectural drawings, is undertaken.
Unless they've already taken this scenario into consideration and are prepared for the associated costs and potential delays, perhaps NASA will back-burner the effort to dismantle the tower; or maybe public opinion of the tower's contribution to our nation's historic heritage will help convince them to shelve the idea.
I am not a number - I am a free man!
Go see the things. NASA has a fully restored Saturn V rocket on display at Kennedy Space Center, set to Smithonian standards. It's an awsem thing to behold.
The launch platforms themselves are boring, not realy historically relevant, and apparently a hazard to the environment. Scrap them, and use the space for something else.
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
Save a historic building? Sure. I can see the economic and cultural benefit to a community. Save a launch tower? I see huge ongoing expenses and very little benefit except to a few museum goers who would just as easily be served by a photo. There are more important, more valuable pieces of space history to preserve. Aren't there?
I'm more concerned with saving the props and the soundstage!
(Murmurs of approval from the tour group. Flashbulbs go off. A handsome, outdoorsy middle-aged man hugs his attractive, 30-something wife. She beams with pride. Tour bus disappears into a tunnel. Soft focus pan back to launch tower, with the super "ALL SYSTEMS GO" to fade.)
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
It seems from the article that:
(1) The tower is disassembled,
(2) The paint is toxic and leeching heavy metals into the groundwater,
(3) Having been left to rust since 1983, the tower segments are in highly questionable condition and may collapse if put back together, and
(4) They may have already disposed of or lost several sections.
If you want to spend over $40 mil, why not build a brand-new replica, from the original designs? It would preserve the scale of the original and also avoid the dangers and expenses incurred by trying to salvage the old pieces. Provided it was built with historical accuracy in mind, does it really matter if the physical pieces are the same? Bear in mind that it doesn't need to be as expensive as the original, because it doesn't actually need to fuel and support a spacecraft; it only needs to look like it does. And you could easily modify the design to accomodate tourists at $25 a head.
Personally, I think a more fitting monument would be to get NASA cleaned up and getting us back into space...
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"