Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45 211
An anonymous reader writes On July 20, 1969, U.S. astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to walk on the moon. Neil Armstrong would say later he thought the crew had a 90% chance of getting home from the moon, and only a 50% chance of landing safely. The scope of NASA's Apollo program seems staggering today. President Kennedy announced his moon goal just four years into the Space Age, but the United States had not even launched a human into orbit yet. Amazingly, just eight years later, Armstrong and Aldrin were walking on the moon.
no doubter here, I watched the launch (Score:5, Insightful)
our family drove down to Florida, hauling our new 17' trailer, partly to see the launch and partly to visit Grandmother. up at 4 am to drive down Cocoa and park on the side of the road. when that Saturn came up over the rise, the noise was monstrous, quiet as a churchmouse until that first lick of yellow-orange showed.
a stunning achievement. from that effort came chips, medical telemetry, Lord only knows what.
our driver of innovation today? cat pictures and dashcam video of accidents.
Re: no doubter here, I watched the launch (Score:5, Funny)
Aliens stole your [shift] key.
Re: (Score:2)
Around here, the aliens are more interested in the stuff we keep in our garages.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, we got damm little back from the Apollo project. (Though NASA's PR department has spent decades telling us different.) Take chips for example - the only reason chips were available for Apollo is because someone had already built the fabs. (To sell chips to the DoD. But they got their timing wrong and the DoD wasn't buying big right then... leaving capacity available for Apollo.)
Re:Decoy (Score:5, Informative)
And the retroreflecting prism arrays [ucsd.edu] sent to the moon, that anyone with a big enough laser can bounce a beam off and determine what the distance of the moon is at the moment, were presumably put up there by Elvis on his way home. Hell, it's just a few pairs of his rhinestone trousers that fell out of his trunk.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the mods fell victim to a Poe [wikipedia.org] there.
Re: (Score:3)
We learned this from Grassy Noel, the famed British snitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Well at least it wasn't his brother, Gassy Noel.
Where were you when the Eagle landed? (Score:3)
This is one of those events where you remember where you were when "The Eagle has Landed" and "One Small Step..." For me, it was a gas station in Jackson Center, PA for the landing (we were driving home from our summer place.)
Re: (Score:3)
I was six. At a friend's house. I had sprained my ankle, so his dad carried me downstairs so I could watch it on TV with everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
I was 17 at the time. I remember watching Armstrong get out of the capsule and walking around then later that afternoon looking up at the Moon in the sky in awe to thing that human beings were up there.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article you link to:
Before the war, Bush had gone on the record as saying, "I don't understand how a serious scientist or engineer can play around with rockets",[56] but in May 1944, he was forced to travel to London to warn General Dwight Eisenhower of the danger posed by the V-1 and V-2.
So, it looks like he wasn't a fan of rocketry in general, which wasn't really particularly visionary of him in retrospect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was 12 and at home in the Netherlands. I had to stay awake all night, but I had no trouble staying awake because that afternoon our neighbor had drowned. When we went swimming in the morning I was in their car. I was all alone that whole night with my thoughts, watching the landing, waiting for hours for the astronauts to get out of the LEM.
I''l never forget.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was eight. We were glued to the TV at home. Heck, we were glued to the TV at elementary school too! Everyone was in awe of this - anything seemed possible.
And then I remember Apollo 13 - biting my nails, hoping and praying those brave souls were going to make it home.
Back to the present, and wondering if we'll ever get out there again.
Re: (Score:2)
My 1st grade teacher lived close to the school. She marched her entire class to her house, where we watched John Glenn on the TV in her living room.
Re: (Score:2)
I was six years old watching that (Score:2, Interesting)
Like a lot of geeky little kids, I saw the grainy black&white television with my family, and was *amazed*. The National Gegraphic that came out with the wonderful moon maps and photos was a treasure of my childhood. So were the years of National Geographic and Analog on the family bookshelves. It was only 30 years later that I realized just how *deeply* Dad delved into the leading technologies of his time. I didn't get to see him much, because he was supporting almost a dozen immigrants. But all the boy
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall what the series was, but my parents subscribed for me a series of books with sticker photos of the ships and facilities. Each one came with a new model and I think they came every three months, but I don't recall exactly.
I had all the models of the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo along with the Saturn V and LEM. (as well as the Enterprise, along with a Klingon and Romulan warbird of course!)
I couldn't wait to open that package when it arrived.
It wa
Re: (Score:2)
The National Geographic that came out with the wonderful moon maps and photos was a treasure of my childhood.
I still have a copy of that issue. :)
The "mankind" thing was just poetry for a domestic audience, read Kennedy's speech and it's crystal clear that the Apollo project was a military response to the "threat" posed by sputnik.
And today (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States has abandoned its manned space exploration capabilities, relying on another semi-derelict cold-war era launch setup, provided by a country it's on the brink of war with (Russia), preferring to funnel almost unlimited funds to anti-terrorism and Orwellian surveillance programs instead...
I'm was born during the cold war. Tensions between the US and the USSR weren't ideal by any means, but at least when I was a kid, we looked forward to a bright future of scientific achievements and space exploration. Now all I look forward to is reaching retirement age with some money on the side that's still worth something despite the inflation, hoping that WW3 and the religious crazies don't overwhelm the world before I kick the bucket.
Sad, sad world...
Re:And today (Score:5, Interesting)
nonsense, the US has many manned space programs in development and some of them are private. Exciting times are coming
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
many pork-barrel projects also happen to produce working systems; hell in defense and space that's par for the course
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
explain to me what reaching out to muslims have to do with space travel????
there is alot of blame to go around, but a lot of it belongs on obama
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, are memories this short! Constellation, Bush's project for post Shuttle manned space, was underfunded from the very beginning. Read the findings of the Augustine Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_of_United_States_Human_Space_Flight_Plans_Committee) which was commissioned by the Office of Science and Technology Policy to review the state of human spaceflight in the US in early 2009. The Commission concluded, "The Committee judged the 9-year old Constellation program to be so behind sch
Re: (Score:2)
That does not change the fact that obama made NASAs number one mission muslim outreach. I have no idea what that has to do with space travel
Re: (Score:2)
That was a peripheral objective of the Director, who now-days is mostly a PR position who has very little to do with actual operations. Nothing in NASA's actual goals or funding has anything to do with that right wingnut talking point.
Re: (Score:2)
yes it is horrible, that abortion of a program is making small and medium businesses and their employees pay more than double for their insurance.
only parasites and slackers are benefitting
Re: (Score:2)
no, the SpaceX is developing systems which have capabliities that 60s one did not.
Re: (Score:2)
you are full of shit, the money Nasa spends on manned space flight is in the few billions (like a billion for Orion or 1.7 billion on space launch system); private companies can deal in that range.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/defa... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
hoping that WW3 and the religious crazies don't overwhelm the world before I kick the bucket.
Yeah, those Presbyterians are really on a rampage, aren't they?
Inflation? (Score:2)
Inflation has been relatively mellow. The cost of raw materials has gone up largely due to higher demand by a modernizing Asia and Brazil. But, services have been almost flat due to a jobs recession such that total inflation averages out to a "typical" historical rate, perhaps even a little low.
Re: (Score:2)
So then what did you and your generation do to contribute to a bright future of scientific advancement and sustainable retirement plans that you wanted? You kicked the can down to my generation from what we can see.
You're welcome.
....same as it ever was ....same as it ever was ...."
"......same as it ever was
Re: (Score:2)
"......same as it ever was ....same as it ever was ....same as it ever was ...."
same.as.it.ever.was
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but people poking and prodding and adjusting things are all that keep most of the experiments on the ISS running. You have a very distorted view of the reliability of electrical and mechanical equipment if you're unaware of that simple fact. Hubble functioned for as long as it did only because human beings were able to get up there and work on it. The big reason to have people living and working in space is that because THAT'S THE ONLY FRELLING WAY TO LEARN HOW TO LIVE THERE! If we're ever going
Re: (Score:2)
for the enormous cost of servicing the Hubble it could have simply been replaced,
No, there's not enough pork in a new telescope for Congress to pass funding, which is why Webb took so long to get funded. To dig a tunnel out of prison you might want a boring machine, but if all you have is a shovel you'll use that. NASA was stuck using a spoon because that was all that Congress would allow. The most disappointing thing that we learned from the entire Hubble mission is that while they wouldn't even pay f
It's not a miracle (Score:5, Insightful)
As Jim Lovell put it:
There seems to be this perception that space travel is this incredible thing. It is awesome for sure, but it is fully within our grasp to do with as we please. One of my favourite arguments against the conspiracy theorists goes: if NASA were willing to fake the Moon landing, they would have done something else by now.
Let's reach for the stars again!
Re: (Score:2)
Let's reach for the stars again!
Sure, but how?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's reach for the stars again!
Sure, but how?
Simple: wait 296,000 years for Voyager 2 to reach Sirius [futuretimeline.net].
Oh, did you mean developing faster-than-light technology that will let us send probes to a star within a human lifetime, and with an energy output less than a supernova? We'll get right on that. First up, falsifying General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory; shouldn't take too long...
Kidding aside, it seems like the 1960s Golden Age of GR was the last fun time; there really was a sense that we could engineer spacetime fabric Real Soon No [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be rude, but that's a rather absurd assumption. Do you really think we know everything that will ever be possible to learn about physics? Since the majority of the universe seems to be made of matter and energy that we can't even detect yet I think there just may be some wiggle room for new discoveries.
Even more absurd is the assumption that the only reason to go to space is to go to other stellar systems in the blink of an eye. There is more than enough here in our own system to keep humanity occ
Great example (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You also have to remember that the entire American manned space program from Mercury through the Apollo moon landings was in reality just another contest in the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Union. Manned space would never have gotten the funding and national priority it got in the 60's without that aspect of it. For many Americans, who were paying the bills, "beating the Russians" was the only reason for it. So to "real leadership and environment that bolsters creative problem solving" I would
Re: (Score:2)
And less than four years later... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's because people got bored doing the same thing over and over.
Really? We only successfully got people to the moon 6 times. If you urinate 6 times in a day, do you refuse to do it again later in the day because you are bored of urination?
Beyond the novelty factor, there's just not much purpose in sending people to walk on the moon.
Novelty? Really? No. Going to Disney World is novel (though plenty of people do it far more than 6 times in their lifetime). Going to the moon is not merely "novel". Going to the moon is a pinnacle of engineering and science.
As for purpose, anyone claiming there to "not be much purpose" to going to the moon is epically short
Re: (Score:3)
For one, we will eventually exhaust all the resources on this planet, and our species will become extinct if we cannot - at the very least - successfully extract resources from other worlds. We really need to find a way to actually live on other worlds if we are to continue to exist.
Actually, it's fairly easily shown that if we continue our current exponential rate of population growth and resource usage, we'll use up the entire Milky Way Galaxy in 2,500 years [ucsd.edu]. That's assuming nonexistent magitech FTL drives which contradict our current fundamental physics theories.
Or, we could stabilise our short-term rapid growth and learn to live on the one accessible habitable world we have, like we did for the past few million years. Our choice.
By the way, any future that has economically viable s
Re:And less than four years later... (Score:5, Interesting)
It won't be long before the 12 human beings to walk on the moon are dead. Already we are down 8. Soon there will be no living person who has walked on another world.
I wonder if time will show this period to be the high water mark of the human race. With all the existential threats facing us it could work out this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Generations before us (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Generations before us (Score:5, Insightful)
Great generation defeated Nazis, landed on the moon; Baby Boomer generation built Internet and tackled racial and gender issues. What are we doing other that building surveillance state and wealth inequality?
We're trying to deal with the surveillance state and the wealth inequality that was produced by the system the "Greatest" generation created. Likely several generations will be required to dig out from under it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think race didn't make a difference back then, you were either not born yet or completely oblivious. Affirmative action quotas suck, but they're better than what we had back then.
Look up the history of the civil rights movement sometime. We won basic rights in the 50s and 60s, not anything approximating full equality.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary accomplishment of my generation, the Boomers, was to start a meme in which hatred of every new technological advance was the default position. On the day of the first Apollo landing, when I was 21, the Greatest Generation was glued to its TV sets while we Boomers were out protesting against the "astropigs." Today, this is why you young people are mostly out of work.
And we didn't invent the Internet either. It slipped through our clutches because it has no single large facilities, like power plan
Generating confusion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on there with your Boomer bashing -- someone who is 70 years old NOW is not even a Boomer (missed it by 2 years) and the average age of the Congress people is old, so 10-15 years ago it wasn't Boomers in power but the vestiges of the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation after them. Boomers have only slowly replaced them since. Add that to the outsized influence the older voters in the electorate have and you find that most of the problems blamed on the Boomers (Social Security bankruptcy for
It's right there! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was also 5 years old. I didn't really understand what the USA was but all of us were totally space mad (we would draw pictures of rockets and moon landers, but put Aussie flags on them). My parents got a TV just to see it. All of the landings were tremendously exciting. Even Apollo/Soyez was exciting.
I am sure the space program was the reason that as an older kid I thought of the US as the cool place where they just got awesome shit done. And I was quite happy to move to the States, and I live and wo
Re: (Score:2)
The moon landing was carried live worldwide, even on the few television stations in the USSR and China. To my knowledge it still holds the record for the program with the largest percentage of televisions worldwide tuned in. (Any game in the World Cup had larger numbers, but as a percentage of total available viewers I believe Apollo still wins.)
What if we hadn't? (Score:2)
I'm kind of curious what the space program would look like today if we hadn't sent people into space and had only used remote landers. About half the current Slashdot audience is critical of manned space exploration and prefers robotic exploration only. Would we be more or less down the road of space exploration if we hadn't done a manned moon mission?
It cost a lot of money to send people to the moon vs. just robotic stuff, but I wonder if there would be as much interest in it if we had never sent humans t
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things I always like to point out in the "Manned versus Unmanned" arguments is comparing the amount of lunar material brought back. The Apollo program returned something like 800 KG of moon rocks. The Soviet Union's landers returned something like 0.8 Grams of moon dust. And those rocks were brought back because an astronaut (who in later missions was trained in geology) actually thought they were interesting, whereas the moon dust returned by the Luna probes was whatever happened to be within
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scaling from 0.8 grams to 0.8 tonnes is just a matter of using a bigger rocket.
For small scales that is true, for large, not so much. When you make a bigger rocket, you need more fuel to lift that rocket. When you add that extra fuel, you need to add even more fuel to lift the weight of the added fuel and so on. As you scale up, a higher and higher percentage of the fuel is used just to lift the fuel. There is a point of diminishing returns. I am not a rocket scientist, so I don't know at what point you hit the wall with current technology (probably not at 0.8 tons), but there is a li
Re: (Score:2)
Early on VonBraun planned on using multiple launches and assemble the spacecraft in orbit. Kennedy's 'end of the decade' deadline made that proposal a non-starter, since we didn't have the time necessary to learn the proper construction techniques, so we ended up with the enormous beast of the Saturn V as our booster. It's too bad, VonBraun's design would have had people working on the surface for as much as a month at a time before returning, and the program would have grown at a sustainable rate that co
Re: (Score:2)
That's also why the Americans stopped going there. It's a waste of the budget and resources.
And those resources were redirected into more bombing of Vietnam.
Re: (Score:2)
A little history: By the time of the last Apollo mission to the moon (Dec 1972) US involvement in Vietnam was for all practical purposes over; US direct involvement officially ended in Jan 1973 with the signing of the "Paris Peace Accords". Perhaps an argument could be made that Vietnam took resources which could have gone to Apollo in earlier years, but considering that Apollo had military type budgets and priority through the 60's I doubt it. The period of maximum involvement by the US in both Vietnam
US, the moon. China, mars. (Score:3, Interesting)
China is the new United States. It has a "future belongs to us" mindset that the US had in the 1960's. It values science and math, and it's willing to invest in its own future. It has many problems it has to solve, social and economic, even bigger ones than the US has, but it will solve them because it has the will to do so.
The US has fewer problems than China, but lacks national will and foresight. It gets tied up petty bickering and political infighting. It no longer values science or understands how much of what it takes for granted has come from basic research in science and technology. Entire fields it once dominated, in everything from medicine to technology, are moving step by step to countries like China. It's little by little strangling its former best-in-the-world national labs, NASA, and other national assets. It's shipping its technology over to China wholesale as industrial theft and voluntary outsourcing of production transfers the know-how elsewhere.
The US is Rome in the last of its days, trying to hang onto its position in the world, but watching the future slip through its fingers.
Re:US, the moon. China, mars. (Score:4, Interesting)
US may be more like Byzantium, a slow centuries-long decline. Reliving its past glories "safe" behind its invulnerable walls.
Civilizations rise and fall. Its not clear who's next. China is making rapid progress, but it isn't clear if they will regain their millennia long place as world leaders, or crash and burn on the next economic downturn. I hope they make it though - I'd rather it were us, but I want someone in space.
For those who didn't see the Buzz Aldrin ama (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Favorite "Apollo" moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Bart got to see stars & moons himself.
50% Chance (Score:2)
Armstrong: "I thought we had a 90% chance of getting back safely to Earth on that flight but only a 50-50 chance of making a landing on that first attempt. There are so many unknowns on that descent from lunar orbit down to the surface that had not been demonstrated yet by testing and there was a big chance that there was something in there we didn't understand properly and we had to abort and come back to Earth without landing."
Seems like a decent estimate. The landing computer had issues that almost was c
"Moondust" (Score:2)
Anyhow - author (Andrew Smith) states that it's as if a decade of the 21st century had been dropped in to the 20th century. Good comment, I thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-obligatory XKCD. 'Number of living humans who have walked on another world.' [xkcd.com]
The overtext says, "The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."
Almost Beyond Living Memory (Score:2)
The saddest part about this is that soon, probably, we'll live in a world where there's no living memory of what it's like to walk on another world. Armstrong and his successors are no longer young and none of the projects to return to the moon or to go to Mars look likely to happen quickly enough. Who in 1972 would have thought that they were watching the end or an era instead of the beginning? I don't think anyone's made it past 1000 miles up since then.
Re: (Score:2)
And if yes - how and when?
Re:It's a fake! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sort of.
Go there. See for yourself.
It won't necessarily prove exactly when it happened, if you're going to be really skeptical about it, but it should prove that it happened... at least to the extent that you can trust what your own senses tell you, and what you will find there will be completely consistent with what should be there. At an absolute worst case, it would prove that somebody spent a whole lot of money to fabricate a replica set of the"fake moon landing" on the real moon just to convince future people who land there that it actually happened... of course,even that still means that somebody has already been on the moon.
Oh, and of course, any stories you might tell upon your return would be categorized by skeptics as either you being paid off to say what you saw. And the really die hard skeptics who go up themselves would probably just believe that they were being brainwashed if they saw it for themselves.
There is a difference, you see, between proving that something happened and having somebody believe that it happened.
Re:It's a fake! (Score:4, Funny)
Laughs aside, I guess the point is, conspiracies just don't scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Get this: Hussein installs a black guy in as NASA chief,...
I'm not from the USA so I don't understand your country but your joke? confuses me. Hussein is dead. His fellow Iraqis hung him after a lengthy trial. Also, it has not been seen as a common role of anyone from the USA to help Moslems feel good about anything. You have it in your constitution to keep church & state separate. That's why nobody would get elected president if they were an atheist or anything but a follower of a western variant of Christianity.
Re:Not going to happen again any time soon (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
"Barack Hussein Obama II"
Nutters like to use Obama's middle name because of the negative correlation with Saddam Hussein.
Re:Not going to happen again any time soon (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect it has more to do with it sounding Islamic / non-American.
Re: (Score:3)
Immigants! I knew it was them. Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.
Re: (Score:2)
Every country was made of and founded by immigrants.
Re: (Score:3)
Leaving aside all the froth-mouthed name-calling there is an important detail the author does not write in
> This guy says in an interview:
Namely that the interview was to Al-Jazeera, the premier Muslim news channel.
Normally politicians (and the NASA chief definitely counts as that) try to tell something nice to foreigners they talk to.
You know, I can't remember the huge outcry of "Lies!", "Pampering Foreigners!", "Forgets his U.S. values and heritage!" when Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner.".
To come ba
Re: (Score:2)
What are calld "Arabic" numbers are more properly called "Hindu-Arabic" "Hindu-Arabic" numerals were invented by Hindu mathematicians in India thus called "Indian numerals" by Persian mathematician Khowarizmi. They were later called "Arabic" numerals by Europeans, because they were introduced in the West by Arabized Berbers of North Africa.
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/un... [unc.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
I see you're scoring -1 which is an abomination (obamination?), just as the quote you gave is.
The hubris of the image: Moslims needing the USA, nay the NASA (the very NASA who get their
feet and meters mixed up sometimes), to tell them about their, the Muslim's, great contributions
to science, math and engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, talk about giving someone the rope to hang themselves with...
Re: (Score:3)
So how does one learn how to colonize space without "slinging meat bags" out there? Robots can do a lot of exploration and even do some of the preparation for installing habitats, but the only way to learn how to live in space is to actually GO THERE. Yes, LEO is barely "in outer space", but until we come up with good shielding we need to rely on the Van Allen belts for protection. For now, we're just taking baby steps, and the pols insist that killing brown people is more important than learning to run
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but you PRAISE IT? And I'M a "nutbar"????
Considering that you are apparently hallucinating praise that doesn't exist in the GP's post, I'm going to say that you may indeed be a nutbar.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood how they were able to launch from the moon back towards Earth. Launching from the Earth requires massive infrastructure and huge rockets. Yes, the moon's gravity well is shallower, but still significant.
It's because the fundamental equation that relates a rocket's performance and the mass fuel it requires to orbital velocities is exponential. This makes it work out so that any chemical rocket leaving earth has to have the vast majority of its weight as fuel, where as a rocket leaving the moon only about half of its weight as fuel.
What's more, the entire lunar module and its fuel supply is dead weight as far as the earth launch is concerned, which makes the earth rocket and its fuel multiple all the bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Didn't realize the VC were into Heinlein.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from actually being on the moon
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with this, I think there is also the issue that the shuttle was not a very good general purpose launch vehicle - or more correctly general purpose launch vehicles do not seem like a good engineering solution.
For missions where you need to send men and equipment into orbit and bring them down again the Shuttle is fine. If you just want to put cargo into orbit, the extra weight and complexity is not worth it. If you just want to put men in orbit and return them, then a smaller vehicle works.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
Do you also think we never went to the bottom of the Challenger Deep because there's no base there?
Re: (Score:2)