Slashdot Mirror


NASA Turns 50

phobos13013 writes "Fifty years ago yesterday, in 1958, President Eisenhower signed the United States Public Law 85-568, National Aeronautics and Space Act to create NASA. In the fifty years since its creation, NASA has made manned missions landing on the Moon, put a space station in orbit, launched numerous unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars, the solar system, and beyond, as well as launching reusable manned spacecraft in orbit. Some of the failures included the loss of two manned spacecraft and their crews as well as the loss of the Apollo 1 crew during a training mission. Although the future of the organization is in question, Americans, and the world, are looking forward to another fifty years of progress including a return trip to the Moon and an eventual manned mission to Mars."

48 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Wowzers! by chebucto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Am I seeing things, or does this story have no comments attached to it five hours after it was posted to slashdot?!?!

    That's got to be some record, at least post-1998.

    I guess that means I can say... First Post!

    Also, Go Nasa! Keep the orbiting observatories coming!

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    1. Re:Wowzers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You failed to capitalize the first word of your sentence. Never post again.

    2. Re:Wowzers! by chebucto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Never post again.

      OK, if you insist!


      Science: NASA Turns 50
      Posted by kdawson on Wednesday July 30, @04:19AM


      Re:Wowzers! (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, @06:34PM (#24392319)

      Strange, though, that the article was posted to Slashdot's front page on the correct date (the 29th), retracted, and then reposted a date late (today). I smell a conspiracy...

      --
      The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    3. Re:Wowzers! by mooingyak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Am I seeing things, or does this story have no comments attached to it five hours after it was posted to slashdot?!?!

      Actually, according to the time stamps I can see, you posted your comment 9 1/2 hours before the story was posted... funky.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  2. ah, for a moon landing flame war... by Digitus1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll go ahead and start us off.

    We obviously didn't land on the moon, check out the alleged videos, the astronauts jump but don't fly away. Learn some science, you people are sheep.

    That should do it, please discuss.

    1. Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly. The moon landing was obviously filmed in a studio in the Hollow Earth. Gravity is lower inside the Earth, since there is more mass on all sides, so it was the perfect location to fake the landing. It was also filmed inside the largest vaccuum chamber ever built to replicate the lack of air on the moon. I don't understand why more people haven't realized these obvious truths.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... by rarel · · Score: 5, Funny

      i ve seen the space shuttle ass hole it definetly landed on the moon do some research...

    3. Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      i ve seen the space shuttle ass hole

      It has one of those?

    4. Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... by ChoboMog · · Score: 2, Informative

      i ve seen the space shuttle ass hole it definetly landed on the moon do some research...

      Actually it was the Apollo Lunar Lander which landed on the Moon, after being launched with a Saturn V rocket.

    5. Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... by TorKlingberg · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a classic xkcd strip: http://xkcd.com/202

    6. Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... by rarel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed. -1 Troll! Geez, I thought you guys would get it...

    7. Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... by initialE · · Score: 2, Funny

      This'll larn you for making jokes w/o a citation - http://xkcd.com/202/
      Mod back up pls

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    8. Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's just ridiculous. Mars has an atmosphere. You can clearly see the dust immediately settling after the astronauts step, indicating there is no atmosphere. Am I expected to believe they built a huge vaccuum chamber on Mars? What kind of fool do you take me for...for which you take...that for which...For what kind of fool do you take me?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    9. Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war... by 3waygeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real reason the astronauts didn't fly away is because they were wearing heavy boots.

  3. But what comes next? by Smivs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    NASA has accomplished some trult amazing feats during the last 50 years, the pinnacle surely being the moon landing of Apollo 11, which I remember watching as an awe-struck 13 year old. But where does it go from here?
    With many countries now seriously into spaceflight and a burgeoning private sector (Virgin Galactic et al) it's hard to see how NASA will stand out as it has done previously.
    However in a much more space-focussed world, NASA's vast experience should allow it to take the lead heading-up collaborative ventures with other space-faring nations, particularly for the 'Big One', a manned trip to Mars. A firm commitment to this within a set timescale could re-ignite the public's interest in space exploration like the Moon landings of the early 70s did.

    1. Re:But what comes next? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NASA has always had this mentality of trailblazing.. the assumption has always been there that someone else will follow once they lead the way. This is lost on many people who look for NASA to build cities on the Moon or whatever.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:But what comes next? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NASA has accomplished some truly amazing feats during the last 50 years, the pinnacle surely being the moon landing of Apollo 11

      But that was 40 years ago, which is exactly what the problem is. NASA's budget has been going down ever since (as a percentage of the nation's budget) all the way from 4% to 0.7% and falling. The only way things are going to change in a dramatic way is if somebody figures out a genuine commercial interest in space exploration, which would lead to an increase in NASA's budget and more competition from private sector and from other nations.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. Re:But what comes next? by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think that's a lot then I don't think you want to know how much money the US is spending on its military.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    4. Re:But what comes next? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, people in this country stop acting so anti-government and commit to a space program on the scales you're talking about. Personally, I don't see commercial interests EVER besting NASA as far as milestones go. Sure, they can use the technology that national space programs develop, but no way a corporation is going to sink $100 billion into getting a man on the Mars.

      Everyone keeps talking about how NASA is in danger as if Microsoft is going to take over space exploration. NASA hasn't hit the same scale of milestones as the moon shot, but I've been impressed with what they've been getting done. Now, I want to see more but we live in a country full of intellectually disinterested American Idol fans.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    5. Re:But what comes next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      After the first FAILED private sector spaceflight, I think the billionaires will rightly leave space to the experts.

      There is ZERO justification for a moon base at this time. We HAVE a space station. The shuttle is a ridiculous contraption at the moment. By the way, have you seen the national debt lately?

      I think NASA is doing EXACTLY what it should be doing, which is unmanned robotic missions. Imagine what we could gather from an array of hubble telescopes... and what little more we could learn from an expensive manned moon shot.

    6. Re:But what comes next? by Mikkeles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They get their NOAA remote-sensing licence?

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    7. Re:But what comes next? by icebrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm tired of this "but there are poor people!" argument. We could dump every spare cent in the budget into welfare programs, and you'll still have poor people.

      If you want to look at it this way, a space program is a jobs program. It's not like all the money spent on it is thrown away in space, or burned in a giant pit... that money all goes into the economy. It pays all the small contractors that make electronics, valves, pumps, etc.; it pays all the mechanics and technicians that build and maintain the systems; it pays all the engineers that design the spacecraft... and all those people have to live and eat somewhere. Make the program interesting, and kids will think "hey, I want a part of that", and they'll stay in school, get science and engineering degrees, and have a better future. I think that's much more beneficial than just handing out welfare checks.

      We need to change the focus of the space program, too. No more of this focus solely on science; it's good and all, but it doesn't directly solve practical problems. The focus should instead be on preserving the human race--ie, developing defenses against planet-killer asteroids and spreading out over many worlds (redundant off-site backups). And you know that, if something happens (like a large asteroid coming at us), the public will be screaming "do something, save us!" And I'll just be sitting there saying "well, I told you so, but nobody listened."

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    8. Re:But what comes next? by elwinc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Add to this the fact that NASA's current mission, Moon+Mars is unfunded, and NASA has to cut left and right just to study the mission. Bush essentially gave NASA a huge unfunded mandate. Mars will never get a manned visit in the current budget climate, so the study just steals money from the other missions.

      And then there's the inconvenient truth that almost all the good science is being done by unmanned craft. Try and list scientific accomplishments that have come out of the International Space Station. With the dubious exception of crystal growth, most of them have to do with acclimatizing humans to space, or bringing some simple plant or insect to LEO to see what happens. Basically no interesting science has happened except with the robot explorations.

      Finally, there's the canceling in 2006 of the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) due to "competing priorities." This to me is the final proof that Moon+Mars is killing space science. My conclusion: Either we should actually separately fund Moon+Mars or we should kill it and re-allocate the money to unmanned projects (like the Mars Rovers & DSCOVR) that are doing actual science.

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    9. Re:But what comes next? by icebrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, they can use the technology that national space programs develop, but no way a corporation is going to sink $100 billion into getting a man on the Mars.

      Even if a corporation was willing to spend that much money... there's no way it would happen. Almost everyone (politicians, executives, shareholders, and the general public) is pretty much incapable of long-term thinking. Hell, most companies don't even seem to think beyond this quarter, much less this year--just look at all the dumb decisions that boost quarterly profits at the expense of long-term ones. Something like the space program could have an enormous benefit twenty or thirty years down the road... but nobody's willing to invest the cash required if they have to wait that long for their return.

      That's why, despite my general leanings toward less government involvement and private industry, I believe governments (ie, not just the US) need to commit to long-term heavy space funding. The potential benefits, like survival of the species, efficient technology that can help reduce environmental impact, space-based power transmission to remote areas, better satellite navigation, asteroid impact avoidance, etc. are benefits to everyone; and while private industry may have a role, only a government has the necessary funds and the longevity to run something like this.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  4. Selling you yesterday's future today by Eukariote · · Score: 5, Insightful

    50 years, and we are still stuck in low Earth orbit. 50 years, and still no cost-effective launch system.

    1. Re:Selling you yesterday's future today by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

      50 years, and we are still stuck in low Earth orbit. 50 years, and still no cost-effective launch system.

      If all goes well, we'll have one this weekend:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Upcoming_launches

    2. Re:Selling you yesterday's future today by VJ42 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This post put's it well. In short, NASA has given us

      I wonder if we subtracted a great percentage of things like weather forecasting, satellite communications, planetary geology, solar technology, aerospace and commercial aviation advancements, awesome pictures of our Universe and other worlds, a growth in understanding of the Universe....

      Secondly, I'm not American but if you asked me to list the things I thought were best about your country, NASA high up, if not top of the list; I'll bet it's the same for many other non-Americans, so NASA also buys you good PR. That's something that your country badly needs at the moment. There is far too much unjustified anti-americanism in the world, programs like NASA do more to counter it than your diplomats and politicians could ever do.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    3. Re:Selling you yesterday's future today by colmore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a fixed cost in terms of energy to pull a pound of matter out of the Earth's deep-ass gravity well. You're asking for a near-free source of energy that can effortlessly be converted into kinetic propulsion. NASA hasn't found it because it may very well NOT EXIST.

      You need to remember what the 'Fi' in Sci-Fi stands for. Just because a handful of its thousands and thousands of predictions have come true doesn't mean the whole mess was a bill of sale.

      Arthur C. Clarke himself has said that it's out and out incredible that we've gotten as far in space as we have, and that without the historical oddity that was the Cold War, we'd probably not be much further along than a fancier Sputnik.

      Cheap ways of escaping the Earth's gravity are kind of like Time Machines, Anti-Aging cures, FTL drives, zero-gravity chambers, true holographic projection, and such. Just because they'd be awesome and we've been talking about them forever doesn't mean there's any remotely reasonable expectation that we'll see them in our lifetimes. There's still a WHOLE lot of history left to happen.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    4. Re:Selling you yesterday's future today by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a fixed cost in terms of energy to pull a pound of matter out of the Earth's deep-ass gravity well.

      Keep in mind that energy is a tiny fraction of current launch costs. Right now the vast majority of the costs for vehicles like the shuttle go into paying the standing army of personnel on the ground.

  5. Re:NASA is 50. And a big disappointment. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmm, that might be because reality is different from science fiction. We don't have intelligent humanoid robots either or even flying cars (you'd think that one would be easy), so are those NASA's fault as well? Increase NASA's budget to more than the current fraction on one percent of the national budget and maybe we'll see some more progress

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  6. Great things will happen in the next 50 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But they won't be done by NASA. NASA has become too politicized, too corporate centered, and above all too risk adverse. The upcoming Orion system is just a rehash of the Saturn-5 with reused Shuttle parts. It breaks no new ground and does not push the envelope in any way. If we've learned anything in the last 50 years it is this: 1) When NASA is not pushing the envelope and taking risks it stagnates, gets sloppy, and then a mission fails. 2) You cannot explore space on the cheap.

    NASA is now not pushing the envelope in any way and they are trying to come up with a new launch system, go to the Moon, and on to Mars without spending any more money. They will fail and people will die.

    I expect to see people walking on the Moon again and possibly Mars within my lifetime. They will be European and Chinese. America will be remembered by history as the Portuguese of the 20th century. Portugal was the first nation to push out and explore the world by ship. Columbus was Portuguese. The first European to round the southern tip of Africa was Portuguese. Then they stopped and Spain, England and the Dutch took up the effort and built globe spanning empires. The US and NASA are following this same path.

    1. Re:Great things will happen in the next 50 years by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...Spain, England and the Dutch took up the effort and built globe spanning empires.

      Not exactly something to be proud of, considering how they did it and all. It just means that the Chinese will be enslaving little green men to toil in their underground sugar cave. And I for one...

      --
      What?
  7. Space cake! by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 2, Funny

    Happy anniversary!

  8. to all those bagging NASA.. by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    .. how many spacecraft have YOU put into orbit? that's right, silence.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  9. NASA continues to be undervalued. by GreggBz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just think it's been a self destructive downward spiral.

    Cut funding for NASA, NASA stops doing amazing things, people stop caring about NASA, the peoples representative stop caring about NASA, cut more funding from NASA, rinse, repeat.

    I wonder if we subtracted a great percentage of things like weather forecasting, satellite communications, planetary geology, solar technology, aerospace and commercial aviation advancements, awesome pictures of our Universe and other worlds, a growth in understanding of the Universe.... if people would start to care.

    NASA was a catalyst behind so much stuff that everyone now takes for granted. They are the root of a giant science and technology tree.

    The flaws and bureaucracy were always there. If NASA had funding and direction the flaws wouldn't be the biggest thing we notice.

    To bad.

  10. Happy Birthday NASA by Neuropol · · Score: 2, Informative

    Annual US war budget: $480Bn USD

    NASA US Annual budget: equal to about 1 day of war budget.

  11. Thank you, Captain Obvious by 6Yankee · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Fifty years ago yesterday, in 1958"

    I presume this was for the benefit of any NASA engineers who can't convert between metric and Imperial years?

  12. toast by phrostie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    *raises glass*

    to the next 50 years

  13. Space shuttle is a problem by soldeed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NASA's problem; The @$#%#^%* space shuttle Gee. they said space travel sure is expensive! what can we do? Hey, let's build a re-usable space ship! We can operate it like an airliner and launch it every two weeks! (cough!) It will be cheap and economical! (cough!) We can get rid of all our expendable launchers! (cough!) And it will be safe, we can even take school teachers up for rides! (CHOKE!) Inefficient, bad compromise between a cargo ship and crew launcher, Inherent design flaws that make it vulnerable to catastrophic failure, huge operating costs that make it more expensive to launch than a saturn V, and has completely put an end to all manned exploration. Sorry, dicking around in orbit doing science experiments is NOT exploration! I will be glad to see them sitting in museums.

  14. DSCOVR was a victim of ideology, not budgets... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2, Informative

    The current administration has zero interest in funding anything to do with studying climate change, particularly a satellite first proposed by Al Gore.

    It was built, but never launched. It now sits in storage (at a cost of $1M/year), awaiting a less hostile administration.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triana_(satellite)

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  15. Congrats NASA on 15 years of incredible progress! by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...and 35 years of wasting my money.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  16. And not to forget... by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    50 years of aeronautics research on a steadily declining budget:

    http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/technical_excellence.htm

    Just $750 million in aerospace funding for FY2007; perhaps it is time to split the ``NA'' from the ``SA'' and give the aeronautics directorate the freedom to pursue its own budget and agenda outside the bondoogle that is the US space programme.

    In other words, just turn the clock back those 50 years...

  17. Re:NASA not dead! by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The stench first appeared at 6.23am Houston time. The source is still unknown.

    Whoever smelt it, dealt it.

  18. WMD seen on the moon and mars by nexttech · · Score: 2, Funny

    There, That should help them get funding. George please take note.

  19. Re:NASA is 50. And a big disappointment. by spidercoz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Better hope your kidneys never go bad or you never need an MRI or CAT scan. And don't wear those Nikes or use anything with velcro. Don't watch weather forecasts anymore either, in fact, just turn off the TV permanently. And while I'm at it, don't ever play golf, go swimming, fly a plane, wear a helmet, use a watch, use an air conditioner, become a firefighter, or feed a baby. Oh yeah, and get off the computer.

    IMHO, your HO is an idiot.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  20. ROI from NASA by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    What is the return on the American investment here?

    Here is a breakdown by state and here is just some of the technology that has come out of NASA.

    All the Trillions of dollars the American tax payer has sent to NASA over the years.

    What trillions? The total amount spent on NASA since its inception in 1958 is $592 billion. We spend that much every year on our military.

  21. The Glory Days are NOT Over by sighted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't have any patience for this idea that, as one person put it, "NASA hasn't done a thing worthwhile since we gave up on the moon." In just the past decade, NASA has landed on an asteroid, successfully reached Mars six times, impacted a comet, explored Saturn and its moons in detail, explored Jupiter and its moons in detail, and sent missions on their way to Mercury, the asteroid belt, Pluto and beyond. Meanwhile, the Voyagers continue their quest for the very edge of the solar system. (And this is just NASA - other nations are exploring in a big way, too. For example, between the American, Chinese, Japanese and European space agencies, there are two spacecraft active at the moon, one at Venus and SIX at Mars as I write this, with others en route to various destinations.) If you ask me, the golden age of space exploration wasn't in the 60s. It's right now. Yes, I understand that the human element is in some ways more gripping, and I hope that human exploration regains a place in the story, but for now, the robots are doing amazing things. And I, for one, ...

    --
    Saddle up: Riding with Robots
  22. Visiting NASA, a retro experience. by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I went to a meeting at a NASA facility a few weeks ago, not something I usually do. It felt very 1960s. A conference room with a large fake-wood table, plaques on the walls commemorating events of long ago, and frosted-glass windows for security. On the wall hung three calendars, for the previous, current, and next month, an ancient Government custom. Almost everyone in the room was over 50; many were older.

    The meeting was about airspace deconfliction for UAVs, a bureaucratic problem involving the FAA, NASA, and some other agencies. It was all about who to call, what forms to fill out, and what to do when your application wasn't being processed fast enough. The overall feeling was that this was a hard problem, wasn't going to be solved soon, and nobody really cared that much because their budgets were being cut.

    Driving across the facility, it seemed a monument to the past. Many buildings, and most of the parking lots, were empty. Here and there an aircraft was set out as a display. The place has an operational airport, but it wasn't used while I was there. A few flyable planes were parked on the ramp, but nothing was going on around them.