Slashdot Mirror


Space Exploration Politics -- and an Explanation of the Apollo Flag 'Mystery' (Video)

Meet Tom Moser. And here's another NASA oral history interview with him. And we interviewed him last week ourselves. Tom has been involved, one way or another, as engineer or manager, with every American manned space flight program since 1963. Now, among other things, he's thinking of ways multiple governments and private companies can share their resources to make future space exploration feasible, which may not be engineering -- but in many cases politics can be more important than designing and building the hardware, which is why it's worth learning about.

And thinking of hardware, do you remember the conspiracy people talking about how the U.S. flag on the moon was faked because there's no way it could wave in the breeze without an atmosphere? Moser gives us the inside scoop on that: it was an engineering screwup, and at least partly his fault. Whoops!

39 comments

  1. whaddaya mean, "Whops!" ? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    It's the American Dream to accidentally create one of the world's most enduring conspiracy theories.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:whaddaya mean, "Whops!" ? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those of us watching in 1969 were told at the time that the flag 'flew' because of a stiff wire running across the top. The retroactive conspiracy theory that was concocted around the flag was perhaps the lamest of all time.

    2. Re:whaddaya mean, "Whops!" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The retroactive fantasies about Moon colonies and asteroid mining are far, far worse, old man.

    3. Re:whaddaya mean, "Whops!" ? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You're conflating two things. The samurai-style crossbar (clearly visible on the photo) explains why it doesn't just droop down. It doesn't explain the "fluttering".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:whaddaya mean, "Whops!" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you not watch the video or read the transcript?

      "It was a telescoping rod that held the flag out, it had the wrong coding on it, it wouldn’t extend all the way. So it looks like the flag is waving, really it is not. "

    5. Re:whaddaya mean, "Whops!" ? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I hadn't but what difference does that make?

      Do you know what "waving" means?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:whaddaya mean, "Whops!" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flag only "waved" in film and video when it was being moved, explained by inertia. The photographs people claim show the flag "waving" only show a somewhat rumpled flag, which is explained by the rod not being fully extended.

      Where are you going with this? Are you going to claim it was filmed in atmosphere?

    7. Re:whaddaya mean, "Whops!" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Did you not watch the video or read the transcript?
      > I hadn't but what difference does that make?

      Well, generally when discussing a story about an explanation (see headline), you watch the story so you know what the explanation is before trying to refute it!

  2. Flag Waving on the Moon is Old Hat by nucrash · · Score: 1

    I have seen several cases of conspiracy theorists trying to point to that as evidence. Clearly if they can't see the rod through the top and take in account that gravity will wave a flag as it's being moved around and planted, then you probably shouldn't take the time to explain to them. Stop paying attention to the crazies, that only gives them unneeded attention!

    --
    Place something witty here
    1. Re:Flag Waving on the Moon is Old Hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The explanation isn't for the crazies, who will listen to nothing. The explanation is for those that will listen to crazies and take what they say at face value without thinking about it or questioning it.

    2. Re:Flag Waving on the Moon is Old Hat by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      The problem is that BS seems to be more attractive to people than facts. Facts are boring. People don't want to think, they want a magical explanation to everything. Give them their sky-wizard, or Santa Claus, or dark and complicated "conspiracy theories". Those who want to learn the truth, learn the truth. We who know the truth must guard the well of knowledge and prevent it from being poisoned so that others can learn. But the people who don't want to learn, or who want to "unlearn", nothing can be done about them. Arguing with fools is futile.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Flag Waving on the Moon is Old Hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make it sound as if the world is divided into two types: those that prefer fantasy, and those that want & seek the truth. But most people don't really fall into either of those categories, where a lot of people are interested in learning the truth, but just too lazy or otherwise lack initiative to look into things themselves. Heck, many people will fall into two or all three of those situations but with different fields, pursuing truth on on topic, being lazy about others, and being attached to crazy stuff on yet another topic. But in general people want to learn things if it is easy and interesting, hence that large number of clickbait articles of the forms: "What you didn't know about X will surprise you" or "The truth about Y" etc.

    4. Re:Flag Waving on the Moon is Old Hat by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      There are not different shades of truth. Truth is unique. Therefore yes, there are only two possibilities, those who seek and respect facts and those who don't.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  3. Tripod by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Either get a really cheap tripod when you do these types of interviews or a monopod. Having the image wander back and forth for five minutes is not good.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Tripod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While sorting through my family's old VHS tapes I ran across a recorded TV program targeted at youth containing several interviews where the cameraman was intentionally oscillating from side to side while keeping the camera trained on the interviewee. The perspective and background were constantly shifting. It got old very quickly.

  4. Oh no, space nutter bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could we please hold off on the articles about the space program until the "space nutter" guy is finally institutionalized?

    1. Re:Oh no, space nutter bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, as long as you take remedial math, physics, and basic materials science and engineering, and some sort of history of computers too.

      Until then, you are nothing more than a fanfic writer.

    2. Re:Oh no, space nutter bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, as long as you take remedial math, physics, and basic materials science and engineering, and some sort of history of computers too.

      Funny, as a physicist who previously worked on satellite projects including weather and solar weather satellites, I don't think a lack of science background is the reason I think a space program can be useful.

    3. Re:Oh no, space nutter bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A space program? Sure. Drink all the Tang in Low Earth Orbit you want. Bounce all the Ku band you want off satellites. Heck, it's what I do for a living.

      Thinking the species must leave this rock and colonize the universe on 3D printed space elevator private startups, not so much.

      Bringing up all this tiresome shit about how I only have a computer because of Apollo? Blow it out your ass.

      http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
      http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
      http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
      http://www.distancetomars.com/
      http://www.computerhistory.org...

      http://i67.tinypic.com/35c278x...

    4. Re:Oh no, space nutter bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least one of the space nutter posters (assuming there may be more than one) has made posts about how even satellite programs are wishful fantasy and a waste of human effort. At least one of the space nutter posters used to even make up their own posts to argue against and admitted to it once upon a time. And as far as people bringing up computer history BS, the space nutter poster(s) bring that topic up far, far more often than any one else on these stories... and on stories that have nothing to do with space at all.

      When you have to resort to arguing with yourself because no one else gives you enough to prop up a strawman, and need to drag the topic into things where it is way off-topic, then it is a delusion obsession... which is just said considering that is at what at least such poster is claiming to be fighting. The end result is the appearance of a person that is on par with the likes of APK and the cows go moo troll, but maybe lazier.

    5. Re:Oh no, space nutter bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, you have actual links and quotes to back up your psychotic delusional fantasies, yes?

      When I say Space Nutters believe we only have computers because of space, I don't even have to look very hard. Of course, you'll then ignore the link, or veer off on tangents, or argue over definitions.

      And it looks like you may lack some understanding of satire. I often post absurd caricatures of what Space Nutters say. However, what actual Space Nutters say is not too hard to spot, I've got a list of the most rabid Space Nutter users on here.

      However, I admit that it looks like most of the Space Nutter users may actually be mentally ill or just plain old-fashioned stupid.

      For the record, I'm not a moon landing denialist, I understand how satellites and probes work. I have issues with the content- and fact-free fantasies Space Nutters seem to live by, and especially the kind of absurd beliefs that revolve around "this rock" and "the species".

      I think I've destroyed the "spinoffs" fantasy enough times now, but it looks like I have to keep posting reality-based posts about that too.

    6. Re:Oh no, space nutter bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.
      The only thing you are destroying is your imaginary strawman.

      You have constantly failed to prove that there is anyone who believes "we only have computers because of space"
      ONLY is the operative word.

    7. Re:Oh no, space nutter bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you have failed to explain an alternative meaning to:

      http://science.slashdot.org/co...

      "Apollo was well worth the money spent on it. Not the lunar rocks, but the many other scientific advances advances [telegraph.co.uk] that resulted from engineering a Moon landing. Including the computer you are using."

      Unless you think he really meant the crappy laptop I am using was actually manufactured by NASA in the 1960s for the Apollo project, but stored safely for decades before being secretly left at a Staples liquidation bin for me to buy? Yeah, that must be it.

      Please also provide the links for anyone saying " how even satellite programs are wishful fantasy and a waste of human effort. " Context is important.

      I predict my protons will have decayed before you'll come up with that.

      Please describe how this

      http://www.computerhistory.org...

      fails to dispel the fantasy of the "IC as a space spinoff" myth.

      You will now continue to fail miserably. But take heart, you're on Earth along with every other human being, breathing air, drinking water and enjoying gravity.

      Relax. You're quite safe here.

    8. Re:Oh no, space nutter bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please also provide the links for anyone saying " how even satellite programs are wishful fantasy and a waste of human effort. " Context is important.

      I predict my protons will have decayed before you'll come up with that.

      A quick Google search brings up this as a first result, about how GPS is easy to replace without satellites, which is just delusion when considering the actual diversity of things it is used for, including beyond just positioning. Further search results talk about the lack of need for communication satellites, for how space based telescopes are useless, and how there is nothing to explore or needed for science above the atmosphere.

      But it is pointless to usually reply to these posts, like the one you just made here, as it is 90% strawmen, pulling up links of no relevance to anything anyone said in the thread. No need to repeat the last argument I wasted time on where someone was certain that adaptive optics mean there was never a need to launch another space telescope, but was clueless about telescopes being used for stuff other than visible light. But I do find a 15 seconds to do a Google search to be a rather contrasting to the prediction protons will decay first.

    9. Re:Oh no, space nutter bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have constantly failed to prove that there is anyone who believes "we only have computers because of space"
      ONLY is the operative word.

  5. Mythbusters by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mythbusters debunked the flag theory. It is caused by momentum and lack of air resistance.

    1. Re:Mythbusters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The Moonmen used telekinesis to make the flag tremble in fear of the mighty people of the Moon. The Earthmen, being the stupid apes they are, didn't catch on the subtle threat and will only have themselves to blame when the Moon Emperor orders the invasion of the puny blue planet.

  6. politics more important than by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> in many cases politics can be more important than designing and building the hardware, which is why it's worth learning about

    No, it's why we're all pretty much pinning our hopes on private enterprise to figure out the next generation of space. NASA's manned flight program was defanged long ago, as evidenced by the need to drag out guys like Tom Moser, the hunt for prototype moon rovers, and other nostalgic efforts dredging up a period that happened decades before I was born.

  7. Here's one of the fixed URLs to the article by azav · · Score: 1
    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  8. I am undecided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My biggest concern is that it's been a long time since anyone has stepped foot on the moon. You would think after 50+ years, there would have been more trips to the moon, by any of several countries now, if not independent groups, drones, etc.

    1. Re:I am undecided by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      China is currently planning to make manned moon landings in the next 10 -15 years.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    2. Re:I am undecided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you think that? Hasn't 50 years of nothing proved the opposite?

      Where are the bottom of the ocean habitats? Oops.

      Where are the drilling into the Earth explorers? We're natural explorers, remember? Well?

      What's the appeal of a hostile dead dusty rock? It takes massive resources to get there, and in the end, it's all exactly the same periodic table of elements as right here. Except without all that pesky water, atmosphere and temperature. Or trees, fish, cats, cows, grass...

      What is the appeal? Why would you think that NASA propaganda artwork fiction from the 1960s was realistic?

    3. Re: I am undecided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Observers strongly predict explosive rocket failure.

    4. Re:I am undecided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by any of several countries now, if not independent groups, drones, etc.

      There have been over a dozen "drone" missions to the moon since the manned lunar missions, by several countries including China, Japan and India, even with China putting a rover there.

    5. Re:I am undecided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't forget Luna 16, that returned Moon samples automatically. In 1970. By the Russians.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  9. misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At what point in the video does he talk about the what caused the flag to move? I've watched it twice now, all 5m 15s of it and I never heard anything about it from him in the interview. Slashdot is such a garbage site now a days. Its to the point where they are so slow on news, and then its so poorly written and often wrong that I question my own sanity for still even coming here. Soylent news is better anyway.

    What the hell happened to you slashdot? You are like the hot chick/dude who goes away one summer and comes back 100 kilos heavier and with no self-esteem, having just completely let themselves go.

    1. Re:misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didnt find it either. The same video seems to be posted at links that purport to host different things, so I think someone made a mistake.

      cw

  10. If it was a fake... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    ... then you can be 100 percent sure that there wouldn't be a flag fluttering in the wind. "Hey boss, I checked the film, and the wind is making the flag move". "Don't worry, nobody will notice". Really? What kind of idiot do you have to be to believe that could happen? If there was a flag moving in the wind, the recording would have been repeated.