Apollo 11's 35th Anniversary

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."

Comments

When I look back at 35 years....

[nebaz]

And marvel at what was, and think back of what we thought could be, and see what is, I ask simply WHY?

Re:When I look back at 35 years....

[nebaz]

I wrote

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?

35 years...

[no reason to be here]

and we haven't done much at all comparable since.

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:35 years...

[kippy]

Well, maybe the ISS counts for something in that regard. *shrug*

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.

Re:35 years...

[RatBastard]

It exists to justify the existance of the Space Shuttle, another over-priced boondogle.

Re:35 years...

[Rei]

Quite to the contrary. NASA hasn't done anything as *showy and wasteful* since.

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.

Re:35 years...

[Rei]

Well, it is a nice convenient platform for doing experiments on long-term keeping of life (especially humans) in zero-G, and has had some benefits for learning good (and bad) design elements for habitat construction, space suits, docking systems, long-term stationkeeping, etc.

Beyond that, yeah, it's really just a political tool, both domestically and internationally.

Re:35 years...

[kippy]

My beef is that all the zero-G and life support stuff was established with Skylab and Mir. Further development would have been done as part of a Mars mission or further Moon ones. 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 ISS for the most part.

Re:35 years...

[cmowire]

The problem is, sure they made some great stuff, but they rarely get a chance to flight test it. All of the stuff they made for the X-33 (better heat shielding, aerospike engines, etc) never actually flew. Sure the aerospike engine worked on the stand, but there could be interesting stuff that happens at high altitude. How long did it take them to move ion engines from the lab to DS1 to actually test it?

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...

[2nd Post!]

Your argument can be equally applied to any research science.

"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...

[Rei]

Wait a minute - are you saying that we should *learn on the way to Mars* - so that if something goes wrong, the entire project is lost?

Remind me never to work for you.... ;)

Re:35 years...

[Rei]

No. Stationkeeping is useful for maintaining satellites, also. Go ahead and try to tell me that satellites are worthless, or speculative. It's also applicable, to some extend, for interplanetary travel. So, no, you're completely wrong on that.

> 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.

Re:Happy birthday

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy Birthday!

Your post wasnt offtopic. Mine is!

Perhaps...

[Skiron]

...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

Re:Perhaps...

[Kiriwas]

I just realized as I read your comment how sad it is that I, at 20 years old, have never been able to walk outside and look up and think "There is a human up there". To me it may as well be ancient history. I guess I'm saying I just realized how much I'm really missing living in the era after NASA died.

Church of SubGenius

[kippy]

Man, this is such a troll but I'll bite.

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.

a matter of focus

[novakane007]

Kennedey was not a war president. Instead of using the military industrial complex to float the US economy, like many presidents, he used NASA. This gave the people a goal and boosted the nations pride without having to stomp on a smaller nation. If the US spent half of the military budget on NASA our world would look far different. Science and technology have shown their ability to create massive wealth and prosperity. Look at what a tech focus did for the Clinton era. Let's revive the NASA era. Afterall we only have a few billion years left before this rock is engulfed by the sun. Possibly less than one hundred years before our lust with war obliterates our home.

Re:a matter of focus

[LehiNephi]

The tech focus of the Clinton era led to an over-inflated economy that collapsed under its own unrealistic expectations. People blame bush for the economy tanking in 2000. It was not his fault, nor do I blame Clinton(as much as I would like to). It was similar to the time leading up to the Great Depression--wild hysteria about how much money one could make easily, followed by ruined hopes (and fortunes) when reality set in.

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:Slack In Space!

[Scorchio]

Barely related, but from article about the onboard computer:

"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.

Why it wouldn't happen today...

[BTWR]

Here's why I'm so pissed at the Partisan situation in America.

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:Why it wouldn't happen today...

[AnyLoveIsGoodLove]

Only one crazy line stood out: "Science doesn't know politics"

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.

sad stop on NASA space center tour

[peter303]

A major stop on NASA's space center tour is the moonwalking shrine.The tour leader beams with pride, but I am saddened by NASA's lack of progress in manned space exploration the past 35 years. Its a dusty old museum of past glories.

Sad isn't it...

[jzarling]

In the 60s we looked ahead, learned from failure, tried again and landed on the moon.

Now when we fail, we look back, assign blame, postpone, assign blame, and postpone some more.

Re:Pretty amazing if you ask me...

[danheskett]

I wonder how many high school students today even know we put a man on the moon...
I'd be willing to bet you a serious pile of money that at least 90% (if not 99%) of all high school students (randomly sampled, of course) would be able to properly answer the question: "True or false. Man has walked on the moon?".

As to the details.. that's different..

If you are willing to take me up on this bet, e-mail and we can set terms.

And the valid reason for "going to the moon" was?

[the_skywise]

There was no valid scientific reason for sending men to the moon either. Everything they did could've been done cheaper and more safely with probes.

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...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Bad comparison, but a good example for the general public. Not for slashdot, but for the general public. The fact that DOS was never multi-tasking, or that Windows was never real time, is lost on the general public.

Brief period in time

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was born no living person had walked on the moon.

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...

[MonkeyCookie]

What's even more amazing is that I'm 26 years old and nobody has ever walked on the moon in my lifetime. That's pretty pathetic if you ask me.

What's truly ironic..

[Inoshiro]

You don't know the difference between the homonyms "should've" and "should of" even though "should of" is not sensical, and recognized as a common mistake of English speakers.