Slashdot Mirror


American Space Age Reaches Fifty Years

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."

101 comments

  1. FIRST POST! by Trogre · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh, and what Sputnik shock? It was an amazing achievement, even if "The Enemy" got there first.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:FIRST POST! by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      Oh, and what Sputnik shock?

      Didn't notice the Fifties, did we?

      rj

    2. Re:FIRST POST! by raphae · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I agree with what (I think is) your sentiment completely. In fact, I find it exceptionally lame that, in the year 2008 on Planet Earth, a discussion topic on an internationally-used forum would be something like this. Aren't there enough jingoistic, nationalistic dumbass morons running around with US flags flapping from their SUVs and pickup trucks? Do we really need more of this crap here on Slashdot? I'm not sure what the association between US flags and car dealerships is, but if I see another row of them flapping above a row of brand-new, gas-guzzling, ecosystem-destroying, SUVs I'm going to puke.

      I have suspected for a long time that the US Army's PSYOPS or some other covert domestic propaganda programs are actively influencing discussions on places like Slashdot. This certainly seems to confirm it.

    3. Re:FIRST POST! by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, just like this ridiculous article:

      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/01/0247207

      I think we need another Commie Purge...seems that our old friends the Ruskies have infiltrated Slashdot as well, and it looks like the new Cold War is being played out in the comments section of our beloved tech journal!

      Or maybe its a historical piece about an important event in history (start US Space program, which you have to admit is important no matter what the nationality), and the phrase "sputnik scare" was taken in a historical context from within the article. Nah, too far fetched. Your theory is much better, Tom Clancy.

    4. Re:FIRST POST! by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Being born in the Seventies, well... no.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:FIRST POST! by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      lol...

      Well, im prone to agree with you on the whole "Proud To Destroy" attitude of Neo-Capitalism, or US society as a whole...(I'm Canadian)

      I really doubt that any organization is actively inserting propoganda into /. they can do that via a trickle down effect through well established media outlets...however that does not mean that they are not passively propogating this forum simply because of like-minded topics...

      This is still however a noteworthy event, even if its not really an actual event... perhaps /. needs a "This Day in History" rather than having it as a full fledged front page article. It's more of a "huh, neat... next topic"

    6. Re:FIRST POST! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Didn't you get the memo? First Posts are old news.

      If you want to get noticed, you have to be First American Post.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    7. Re:FIRST POST! by raphae · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Tens of thousands of iraqi civilians have not been killed nor maimed because of another country's bombs, evil politicians' lies, and general dirtbag behavior. Perhaps the greatest war crime of all time - the dumping of 80 million liters of dioxin-laced Agent Orange in the Mekong Delta - for which the war criminals have never been held to account - was not perpatrated by another country. Massive amounts of radioactive contamination in Afghanistan and Iraq were not caused by another country's weapons. And the US's dicatorial, bloody tyrant in east Asia, Suharto, just died. The US is in no position, in my opinion, to be trumpeting its "achievements".

      "Yeah, I cured your acne. Sorry about the accidental leg amputation though!"

    8. Re:FIRST POST! by raphae · · Score: 0, Troll

      But yeah, I think managing to launch a tin-can with a radio transmitter into space with the help of a former nazi scientist is another scrap we should feed to the ignorant flag-waving dumbasses to be proud of.

    9. Re:FIRST POST! by raphae · · Score: 1

      Uh yeah, would those 50's be the same ones that dumbass Truman supported the oppressive french puppet government in Vietnam, and the catastrophically misinformed foreign policies of his administration? Or when Diem's US puppet regime in South Vietnam declined to hold free elections as accorded by the Geneva conference of '54? Or perhaps the election of '55 which Diem rigged to receive 98.2 percent in blatant fraud which the US eagerly supported?

    10. Re:FIRST POST! by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Oooh you're good. You are really good.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    11. Re:FIRST POST! by lessgravity · · Score: 1
    12. Re:FIRST POST! by emilper · · Score: 1

      Massive amounts of radioactive contamination in Afghanistan and Iraq

      ... care to give details ? Do you mean "depleted uranium shells"

  2. Space age is old news by Kenoli · · Score: 1

    This is not the space age.

    1. Re:Space age is old news by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 but space environment is the next of many more frontier for expansion of our knowledge.
      We may gone beyond the space race but space age is here to stay.

    2. Re:Space age is old news by b0nafide · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Space age is old news by canadacow · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome back our old killer pebble overlords.

  3. Killer Pebbles by Shag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. :)

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    1. Re:Killer Pebbles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [the satellite showed that Earth was not surrounded by a swarm of killer pebbles, as some scientists had feared.] 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.

      It's just like the Bush administration: if there are no terrorists in an invaded country, you MAKE terrorists by pissing off the population.

      -1 Troll

    2. Re:Killer Pebbles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mabye we could use that badass missle defense system that the cold war also gave us.

  4. Orbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Bah, no such thing ever happened. We've looked over the edge and seen the turtle. How are you supposed to orbit that?

  5. In other news.... by Damocles+the+Elder · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Bronze Age turns 4000. People care equally about both milestones. GIFs at 11.

    1. Re:In other news.... by Elky+Elk · · Score: 1
      Dude, the iron age would totally kick the bronze ages ass [1]!

      [1] McFarlane ; Family guy

  6. Started 50 years ago, peaked 39 years ago by timeOday · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Satellites are indeed a big deal. But beyond our own orbit, space has turned out rather... empty.

  7. Hooray! by icj · · Score: 0

    Lets all celebrate by shooting a monkey into space!

  8. Not A Triumf For America... by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 2, Informative

    American Space Age Reaches Fifty Years

    But in Soviet Russia, Space Age Reaches 51 Years:

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

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
    1. Re:Not A Triumf For America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - in Soviet Russia, the 51 years reaches the space age!

  9. ... and pointless by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:... and pointless by evanbd · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    2. Re:... and pointless by dpilot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    3. Re:... and pointless by webmaster404 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    4. Re:... and pointless by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      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 dystopian environements where you are lucky to make it out alive...and when you do, your freinds are dead...

    5. Re:... and pointless by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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 history.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    6. Re:... and pointless by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      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 still have health insurance next year.

      etc, etc, etc

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    7. Re:... and pointless by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    8. Re:... and pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bitch n' moan.

    9. Re:... and pointless by nilbud · · Score: 0

      Chemicals in the food and pills for kids combined with the worst education system in the developed world.

      --
      never let a man put his dirty how-do-you-do into your bajingo
    10. Re:... and pointless by AikonMGB · · Score: 1

      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-

    11. Re:... and pointless by Sanat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    12. Re:... and pointless by calculadoru · · Score: 1

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

      --
      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
    13. Re:... and pointless by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    14. Re:... and pointless by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      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!

    15. Re:... and pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was righting that about the photoelectric effect circa 1904 many people would have thought I was insightful. I guess we just discovered why we don't leave science to the mobs, eh?

    16. Re:... and pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than the fact that things can't devolve any worse without turning into 1930s-redux, what makes you think things are going to get better?

    17. Re:... and pointless by servognome · · Score: 1

      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 will make space easier to reach and the wonderment will be renewed.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    18. Re:... and pointless by evanbd · · Score: 1

      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 dramatically -- it's happening slowly thanks to the private sector, but it could have been much faster if people wanted it. The biggest limitations are in our imaginations and desires, not technical capability or budgets.

      We should not simply sit back and passively wait for abstract technological forces to make space more accessible without our intervention. We should ask why it hasn't happened already, and push for it to happen *now*. The universe awaits us -- all we have to do is decide we want it.

    19. Re:... and pointless by servognome · · Score: 1

      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 it's hard and there's other intereting things to look into for now.

      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 dramatically -- it's happening slowly thanks to the private sector, but it could have been much faster if people wanted it. The biggest limitations are in our imaginations and desires, not technical capability or budgets.
      Space is prohibitively expensive, look at who the private sector hobbyists are - extremely rich people who can afford the expense of space tourism or testing their own vehicles.

      We should not simply sit back and passively wait for abstract technological forces to make space more accessible without our intervention. We should ask why it hasn't happened already, and push for it to happen *now*. The universe awaits us -- all we have to do is decide we want it.
      Why shouldn't we wait? It's like asking why we didn't have a computer in every home in 1950 - too expensive, too slow, and isn't very compelling. Once the technology matures to the point of being accessable, then you will see the space boom.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    20. Re:... and pointless by Tikkun · · Score: 1

      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.

    21. Re:... and pointless by evanbd · · Score: 1

      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 the goal is for every person to take vacations on the moon, but that's not the point. The fact that a few private sector hobbyists can do what they are should be a clue that space is amazingly accessible to humanity, not that's it inaccessible to individuals.

      And lastly, it's nothing at all like asking for computers in every home 50 years ago. It would be more like asking why computer technology grew at an explosive pace until the 1970s and then slowed to a trickle -- because that's basically what happened with space exploration. The probes we send out have gotten a bit more sophisticated, but the goals for the missions have become more modest as we send robots instead of people. The cost of access has stayed about the same, when it should have come down by a factor of ten. Hopefully SpaceX and evetually other companies will change that, but it is shameful that it took so long.

    22. Re:... and pointless by servognome · · Score: 1

      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 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 the goal is for every person to take vacations on the moon, but that's not the point. The fact that a few private sector hobbyists can do what they are should be a clue that space is amazingly accessible to humanity, not that's it inaccessible to individuals.
      The cost per pound to launch things into space is still around $10k. And that's for a relatively trivial thing like putting something in orbit. It becomes exponentially more expensive the farther out in space you want to send things. Until we have a means to affordably do something meaningful (not just put a flag down and leave footprints) there is no compelling reason to really push for space exploration. You will see the boom when we can start to harvest raw materials from asteroids, but right now the technology just isn't there.

      And lastly, it's nothing at all like asking for computers in every home 50 years ago. It would be more like asking why computer technology grew at an explosive pace until the 1970s and then slowed to a trickle -- because that's basically what happened with space exploration.
      Space exploration was not booming in the 70's. There were a few very specific propaganda accomplishments. Right now we have people in space for over a year, we have a giant space telescope, we are placing rovers that can be controlled, launching satellites has become a common commercial venture. The stuff that excited people in the 60's, are so common that people don't care. Are you looking for the single "WOW" crowning achievement, or actual development of space exploration.

      The cost of access has stayed about the same, when it should have come down by a factor of ten.
      Has gravity decreased since the 70's? The cost has decreased, but launching things into space requires a number of different technologies. To achieve the breakthrough pricing you're looking for requires breakthroughs in many areas. And while the price per pound hasn't decreased 10x, with more powerful computers, lower weight materials, and other improved technology, the effectiveness per pound launched has gone far beyond 10x.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    23. Re:... and pointless by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    24. Re:... and pointless by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      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.

    25. Re:... and pointless by evanbd · · Score: 1

      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 that is cheap, reliable, and most importantly flies often (without that you'll never get the first two). We need to stop chasing performance numbers and instead focus on cost. Who cares if the fully fuelled stage weighs more on the pad for the same delivered payload, if by doing so you can have higher margins and therefore less expensive production. You don't need every last second of Isp if sacrificing a couple percent means the engine gets enough cheaper to lower your overall costs. The breakthroughs required are not in the technology, but how the design and development is done. If someone had decided that cost per pound actually mattered enough to be worth chasing, then launch costs would already be down by that factor of ten.

      Effectiveness per pound has gone up dramatically in some ways, and very little in others. The most relevant being that a person and the equipment to keep them alive has not gotten substantially lighter. Even so, and with increased competition from robots, people on site remain the most effective option anywhere it's viable -- provided you're actually willing to ask for an agressive set of mission goals. If you keep scaling back missions to make them cheaper, you get robots that do the mission, but the science return per dollar spent drops precipitously. (Of course, there are plenty of missions that can't be done by people yet -- Messenger and New Horizons come to mind as obvious examples.)

      At the start of the 1970s, space *was* booming; that ended with the Apollo program. There have been ups and downs since; fortunately, we seem to be on an upswing right now, but that's as much or more due to private sector things as it is to pure science and exploration missions. And, even though private sector stuff is how I'm personally involved, I think the pure science missions are by far the most interesting right now.

  10. Russian space age reaches 51! by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

    Drat, foiled again! Savour your victory while you can, because next year will be different!

    1. Re:Russian space age reaches 51! by Aviation+Pete · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
    2. Re:Russian space age reaches 51! by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      It's an arbitrary date, not unlike when one gets a degree, but only after one passes the exams :)

  11. At 50, aching back, diapers... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    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!

    1. Re:At 50, aching back, diapers... by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting story from NASAwatch: "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 the CCAFS Museum with each of the rockets being armed with the smallest engine they can carry, an A8-3. This engine would have propelled each of these 2 oz. Juno I replicas the a computer calculated altitude and or range of only 239 feet and each is recovered with a 12 inch parachute. The Air Force, however, upon discovery of the planned flights felt that these rockets could pose a hazard to the nearby Delta pads- which are made of concrete and steel and are more than 10 times farther from the model's launch site than the rockets can fly. With that as their reason, the Air Force started the red tape machine. Soon the USAF Jags got involved and wanted a held harmless form signed by everyone near the launch site. Next, a USAF person of non-importance decided to contact NASA and tell them that the rockets would be firing from the actual Explorer I launch site, which was on their property. Now enters the NASA red tape machine, which demanded a full safety review (keep in mind that kids have been flying such rockets since before NASA was even created). With this red tape storm in full swing, the CCAFS wing commander's office had heard enough and scrubbed all 50 launches. Thus, all over America on January 31, 2008 school kids and adults will celebrate the the day that the US Army launched Explorer I into space by launching model rockets. In spite of the winter conditions, the launches will take place in parks and school yards and back yards all over the United States- every place EXCEPT for Cape Canaveral. In 1958, the US Army restored the nation's pride following Sputnik, but it seems that in 2008, the Air Force and NASA cannot even get out of their own red taped way to launch a simple rocket made of balsa wood and paper.

  12. December 14 by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    December 14, 1972 is the anniversary I pay the most attention to. I sincerely hope we go back.

    1. Re:December 14 by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Informative

      "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"

    2. Re:December 14 by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      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.
    3. Re:December 14 by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:December 14 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      December 14, 1972 is the anniversary I pay the most attention to. I sincerely hope we go back.

      I sincerely hope we go farther.

    5. Re:December 14 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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?
    6. Re:December 14 by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      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. :)
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:December 14 by evanbd · · Score: 1

      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, a desire to learn about and explore the universe. Now? It's gone, as best I can tell. Even among the geeks, it's fading. What happened?

    8. Re:December 14 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is lacking the imagination? I think your startrek vision is misplaced in the era when expensive human underwater exploration submarines are replaced by cheap robotic ones. When grandmasters loose embarrassingly to chess programs. Have you ever heard of Darpra challenge? And finally, why do you insists that some expensive technicians (astronauts) can do basic science?

    9. Re:December 14 by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Perhaps one day robots will surpass people for general purpose work; but that day is neither today nor in the immediate future.

      Astronauts, even if they are only highly skilled technicians, can do the basic science work. They might not be the principle investigator, but there are many qualities that make them superior to robots. They're general purpose and good at using a multitude of tools. They can be given complex and somewhat vague instructions and perform them well -- and those instructions are trivially easy to update in the middle of a mission. And, perhaps most importantly, they can go "that's interesting..." and take creative action that hadn't been previously discussed.

      It's also worth noting that the reasons undersea robots work so well don't apply in space. In deep ocean, humans are actually far more limited in capability than they are in even fairly old space suits. And perhaps more importantly, there's a human only a few hours away who can perform general repairs and diagnosis. If you could haul your Mars robot back to Earth, spend a few hours working on it, and send it back in 12-24 hours, at lower cost than just sending a person, then the motivation for sending people would be much less clear. But you can't -- in space, if you want a person within a few hours range, they have to be on site.

    10. Re:December 14 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you want to "update instructions in the middle of a mission"? Space missions are planned for years and the execution is scripted. There is little to none improvisation. Therefore, you design machines that would perfect at any given task. They do it cheaper and more reliably -- I never heard of the machines consuming an alcohol before the mission. And when comparing space to deep sea exploration we are taking about literally astronomic cost difference between manned and robotic missions.

    11. Re:December 14 by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    12. Re:December 14 by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      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 modernist idea trying to survive in a post modern world. Even the name "Manned" is an anachronism.

      Secondly, sending a robot isn't as good as sending a person, even if only for purely sentimental reasons -- which are not without value. Sure - sentimentalism has value. I'm sentimental about steam trains. But for all my sentiment, I don't claim that steam trains are the future of rail travel. Manned space flight belongs in the steam era of space exploration.

      And if you say they are, They are. Robotic exploration is the future of space exploration.

      then I ask very simply -- what is wrong with you? Have you no sense of wonder? No drive to see humanity explore? You could try saying that if you wish. If you do, I'll merely point out that since robots are much better at space exploration than humans, it is the advocates of human-space exploration (like yourself) who are holding back the exploration of space. So I ask you -- what is wrong with you? Have you no sense of wonder?

      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.' Examples please - because I have numerous contrary examples. For instance, I notice that the MER robots completed a detailed map of the entire surface of the planet (from orbit) in a matter of weeks. How long did it take humans to do that on earth? Oh, that's right - thousands of years. And when we did, we used machines. I'll also note that nobody cares that it takes longer for robots to do some things than humans. Time is only of the essence if you have limited resources and time - ie a human mission. Robots run on solar power, so they can take as much time as they like. This kind of flexibility is one of their chief advantages over space suited humans.

      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. Then I challenge you. Draw up this list, and we'll go through it and see. Don't expect we'll accept your hand waving, generalised statements at face value. For realism:
      1. The mission will be somewhere interesting - let's say jupiter and it's moons.
      2. Mission set in the near future - let's say 2030
      Let us see your list.
    13. Re:December 14 by evanbd · · Score: 1

      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 that the MER *rovers* aren't doing that either, right? They're doing basic geology.

      So, let's craft an interesting set of mission parameters for a moon of Jupiter; it doesn't really matter which one. In fact, I'll make the goals broadly applicable enough that they'd be reasonable on the Moon or Mars too. I'm not a geologist or a planetary scientist or any other such directly relevant profession, so these are mostly a big stab in the dark at things that might be interesting.

      It starts with sample return. No instruments you bring with you can match those on Earth, so you should bring samples back. 100kg seems rather minimal; 500kg would be nice. There should be a variety of types of rock, from a variety of locations. I'd like core samples from at least a meter below the surface. A dozen locations and 2-3 samples each ought to suffice. I'd like pictures of rocks and their insides after cleaving them open with a hammer. A few hundred rocks will enough, but it should include all obviously distinct varieties to be found. Oh, and the sample return and cleaved rocks should both include anything that looks especially interesting, for whatever reason.

      I'd like to see a battery of tests for signs of microbial activity -- starting with the Viking method, but with variation and repetition. I'd like to see GCMS results for organics on a host of samples. I'd like rough scans for interesting microscopic features that might indicate fossil records or anything else of interest on at least a few hundred rocks, with detailed examination of anything out of the ordinary. Oh, and more samples collected from the region / type of rock that produced it.

      Seriously, that's just scratching the surface on both the geology and biology fronts -- and it doesn't even touch things like weather, or ISRU tests, or looking for water. And it's all things that would be reasonable to expect from a relatively small, short dedicated science mission. And any robot would have trouble doing that on Earth, let alone in space -- even before you count the *huge* added value of on-site decision making. Of course, this would be accompanied by a fully robotic orbiting survey craft as well, but that's beside the point.

      You're welcome to point out that I've stacked the deck in favor of humans, here, because I have. But not through any underhanded tricks; all I've done is set the mission requirements high. Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make -- as soon as you ask for significant science returns, humans are better, faster, and cheaper. Sure, that won't always be the case, but it will be for the near future. If you settle for a few photos and scratching a couple millimeters off a few rocks, robots do well -- but your science return per dollar spent is a lot higher on the manned mission that costs more and returns a *lot* more data.

    14. Re:December 14 by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      "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

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
  13. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a cool troll thing you've got going on but I'd suggest leaving Diablo III unbolded. It's the first thing I saw so there was no surprise.

  14. Actually, it has not peaked. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    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 any DECADE of the 19Xx's.

    BTW, America makes a lot of launches today that are not really advertised. I would guess so does Russia. China absolutely does the same thing.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  15. Long live space race. by mnemonic_ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Long live Molvania.

  16. They haven't by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    they just wonder about different things. Sure, most of it is consumer bullshit and Britney-watching but it is still wonder.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:They haven't by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 1

      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.

  17. Going to the moon was a chess move by sweet_petunias_full_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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.

    There were bigger reasons that just putting one over their nemesis. The 1957 Sputnik launch had sucked off a lot of prestige. Arms sales, alliances and whatnot flow your way when you can prove you have the right stuff. If you appear to fall behind on something like intercontinental ballistics (as it was at the time) people could switch alliances or arms purchase decisions since they'll doubt you can deliver security. Even if leaders didn't like the Soviets, they might still make deals with them. The whole ball of wax could unravel...

    --
    You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
    1. Re:Going to the moon was a chess move by vux984 · · Score: 1

      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 there *were* and still are some options without having to land on venus or mars.

    2. Re:Going to the moon was a chess move by sweet_petunias_full_ · · Score: 1

      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 the U.S. ICBMs would have enough control to hit accurately (accurately enough to hit the enemy and not the ally - very important). If you can land on the moon and return then presumably you can control your orbits well enough.

      A moon base and a space station prove other things, but I suppose in terms of raw security implications they won't be as critical for a while.

      --
      You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
  18. Cool Logo by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Through half a century, and quadrillions of miles served, the NASA logo is still cool.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Cool Logo by repapetilto · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Cool Logo by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. How could they have stolen it from Star Trek, when Star Trek is 300 years in the future?

      Unless NASA really just invented time travel, and has been cherrypicking the future for "inventions" ever since...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Cool Logo by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      http://history.nasa.gov/meatball.htm

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_logo

      Although, the Star Trek emblem is far better looking, and has withstood the test of time (although trimming itself down)

      However...

      http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-082606a.html

    4. Re:Cool Logo by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Ha... so to summarize all the interesting stuff you were too lazy to write out: NASA got the guy who (must have) copied the original meatball for starfleet to design the new Orion insignia and NASA has a problem with reproducing the original logo since they don't yet have replicators. Lets just hope for the logical conclusion

  19. erm? by b0nafide · · Score: 1

    Last Apollo 17 EVA?

    1. Re:erm? by evanbd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed. The date of the last footprints on the Moon.

    2. Re:erm? by ceroklis · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:erm? by AJWM · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      -- Alastair
  20. Flat spin by Media+Withdrawal · · Score: 5, Informative

    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, which points out that the same would have happened to O'Neill colonies without constant dynamical control.

    1. Re:Flat spin by AJWM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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). 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.

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:Flat spin by Media+Withdrawal · · Score: 1

      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 (though "do" is a pretty strong word for something that was never built). Living in an O'Neill colony would be like living in a tall building that depended on a complicated Rube Goldberg assembly of weights, chains and computer controllers to keep it balanced on a sharp point. I'd rather live somewhere that didn't collapse at the first glitch.

  21. Well, things have changed ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  22. It's 50, and its showing its age. by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1
    Arthritic, and signs of dementia.

    Just think - *IF* NASA's back-to-the-moon plan pans out, it will have taken 50 years to go back. But it won't pan out. You can bet the program will be axed.

    --
    This space available.
  23. JPL Amateur Radio Commemorative Event by dtmos · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 for times and frequencies of operation.

  24. 50 Years of Space Flight, thanks to Alabama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the United States Space and Rocket Center we are celebrating the anniversary with the opening of the Davidson Center - a large building which houses many Apollo spaceflight artifacts along with a real Saturn V that is under restoration. Its opening to the general public will be next Friday.

    Funny story, since the Saturn V is an ICBM, Russia called to ask what we had done with the Saturn V after we moved it indoors. For similar reasons, all of the rockets we have here that can hit Russia lay on their sides, instead of vertically (like the non-ICBM's all are).

  25. good NOVA episode on this by peter303 · · Score: 1

    - 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 the space effort. He wasnt just a lame golfer.

  26. Yep they celebrated all right by sconeu · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.