Apollo - I am still amazed

Whilst what was done was done, and in my view one should learn from spilt milk rather than worry about it, it would have been infinitiely more valuable to have spent the money on Nuclear Fusion for example.

But the military being what it is in the USA, there is only so much one can expect in terms of the long view.

The Apollo had nothing to do with the long view, in my opinion.

The same mistake should not be made again.

To migrate to an inhabitable planet [if such is ever found - though it is possible that such a thing exists] even at the speed of light, makes the notion impossible and a sheer waste to persue.

Better the spend such money on scientific expertise to keep our own plannet healthy than this kind of idiocy.

All IMO, of course, but this I really do think is a waste of valuable finite rescourcses, in the same way as restoring old Vulcan bombers and so on ... I saw the Vulcan over Worcester a few weeks ago, so I imagine it was at Fairford or soimething, and I thought it both amazing and rather sad ...

ATB from George

So can you see established and proven apollo principles in the constellation program (which hopefully will take us to mars and beyond?)

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Apollo was early, cost a fortune, was politically motivated, had military aspects, was not configured on a purely scientific basis etc etc but to say it was a 'technological dead end' and deny its technological significance when confronted with evidence in animated cartoon form suitable for four year old's that it is being used in principle as a methodoligy to take us to mars is blinkered in the extreme.

BigH47 - spot on.

Life isn't always simple, Simon.
Sometimes things, like the Apollo programme, can't be summarised as 'good' or 'bad'.

We will have to wait to see how many years there are between the last Apollo mission,
& the next human space journey beyond LEO.
But that it has been this long gives a clear indication that Apollo was at best technology that lacked any significant vision for the future.

Unless you get your science from cartoons on Youtube.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
it would have been infinitely more valuable to have spent the money on Nuclear Fusion for example.

How do you know? Your stance presumes that greater investment would have generated a greater result. This is not guaranteed. Indeed, Brian Cox's program on Fusion a few months back suggested to me that next to no progress in the direction of sustainable and controllable fusion has been made since I was at school. Fusion power maybe - just maybe - can't be realised, ever.

quote:

The Apollo had nothing to do with the long view, in my opinion.

Is there a 'long view'? Surely the practical direction that cutting-edge technology takes is pretty much beyond prediction. We can all stargaze, of course - I'm talking of a clarity of thought that can lay out staging-posts of progress. I suggest that this clarity is hard to come by.

Apollo was necessary to the soul of man - it didn't have to lead anywhere.

Fraser

The 'cartoon' is NASA produced and directly reflects the current constellation program development.The aim is 2020-2022 for the moon subject to budget approval which is being debated this autumn in congress.

The time elapsed since apollo and the new constellation program reflects limited investment in NASA and the demands of low earth orbit scientific study not any weaknesses of the technical validity of apollo as a methodology.

You are clutching at straws and are avoiding acknowledging the system solution similarities.

When we walk on Mars (hopefully in my lifetime) it will be in no small part to what happened 40 years ago this week.

So humans might (Considering American economic problems I'm betting not) return to the moon 50 odd years after Apollo, using what is basically Apollo technology.

Do you think those involved in the 1950/60s space programme would have been inspired to know where their work takes space exploration in the 2020s? It's not exactly a giant leap for mankind, is it?

Fraser

There is always a long view if you take the time to seek it.
Apollo lacked this because it was a military project with political objectives.
Nothing has to lead anywhere. But usually it's better if it does.

quote:

Originally posted by Fraser Hadden:

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
it would have been infinitely more valuable to have spent the money on Nuclear Fusion for example.

How do you know? Your stance presumes that greater investment would have generated a greater result. This is not guaranteed. Indeed, Brian Cox's program on Fusion a few months back suggested to me that next to no progress in the direction of sustainable and controllable fusion has been made since I was at school. Fusion power maybe - just maybe - can't be realised, ever.

Fraser

Of course I don't know [about Fusion being possible] and neither do you, I am guessing.

But it is easy to say that the money was rightly spent on a dead end waste like the Apollo missions, and then say we have made no prgress with Fusion. All I say is regardless of where we are now [with Fusion], where might we have been had we [and the US in particular] given Fusion a higher prioity?

I remain suspiscious that Fusion will only really be of interest to the US once they can no longer control and gain profit from the Dollar Oil Market, and as such I fear that they may leave it too late to avoid an energy crisis of an unprecedented sort if they do not wake up on the Fusion issue ... Perhaps they already more or less have it cracked, but it is Top Secret?

On the other hand I expect that I shall expire before the massive reduction in human population [through whatever method Nature chooses] actually occurs if mankind does not get energy and ecology in reasonable balance, so beyond pointing things out to get people thinking - rather than accepting blindly the propoganda that such Military Sabre Rattling as the Apollo experiemnts were mankinds greatest scientific achievement - for myself I do not worry.

______


On the other hand the US [with a certain anount of non-US input] managed to build the Atom Bomb rather fast when they set about it, so perhaps Fusion will be cracked quite quickly when the US decides to put its economic might into it?

ATB from George

I have to say I'm a big fan of the whole thing and the period from Mercury to The Shuttle is one of my pet subjects. And every time I hear, read or see anything new, I stil can't help but think, F'kin hell.

Truly, Apollo was ahead of its time and that's the real reason things 'stalled' in many people's eyes. They ran before they could walk. And then ran out of money.



Mercury Astronauts - The Right Stuff

There are some interesting diverging views on this thread, but whatever the criticisms of the Apollo programme I don't think you can accuse it of stopping progress on development of Nuclear Fusion. The programme finished nearly 40 years ago, so any available money must have been diverted elsewhere since. As Brian Cox said on his programme on Nuclear Fusion, more money is spent on ringtones per year than any scientific research - which shows where contemporary society's priorities lie given free choice.

regards,

mat

Hi,

I thought it was great.

However just to add to the debate

http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=265x5191

Is that the reason he keeps very quiet?

Cheers

John

quote:

So humans might return to the moon 50 odd years after Apollo, using what is basically Apollo technology.

Material science and computing has moved on hugely but in terms of propulsion systems and the functional divisions of the rocket, absolutely. By George I do believe you are starting to get it

The main difference this time (fingers crossed for budget approval)is that the crew will travel separately to the large pay loads and will combine in low earth orbit to continue the journey.

John

Neil keeps quiet because he is a very private ex test pilot who has never felt comfortable with the hoopla and has always believed that the program is the summation of the work of 400,000 individuals. A recent bbc4 documentary also alluded to a conversation Armstrong had with Charles Lindberg where Lindberg gave him advice on remaining sane and 'retreating to the core of oneself' in the face of constant hounding.Remember Lindberg lost a child to kidnappingand provided a very unhappy example for Neil to witness.

As an example of the hounding, Armstrong recently had to instigate legal proceedings against his hair dresser because the guy was selling his cut hair, strand by strand, on the internet.

I think Armstrong has stepped back to remain grounded. Buzz loves the attention and is very much the polar opposite although there was a large part of his life consumed by booze after the mission. They both must have felt castrated by NASA for preventing them from ever going up for another space mission. These guys were just to precious from a PR perspective.

Your selective myopia is very funny Simon.

Well watching someone flail about trying to defend
their own lack of understanding is always good for a chuckle in my book.

quote:

Well watching someone flail about trying to defend
their own lack of understanding is always good for a chuckle in my book.

Very true Simon, so thanks for providing us with that entertainment.

Man you are gooood. A career in standup awaits.

You could develop a whole routine based around how little you know about most things

Please stop intimidating me with your intellect, & ...

Good idea. Ta ta

I was totally unfazed by the Americans landing on the moon.

After all it's not exactly rocket science is it?

Back on topic, I still view it as one of the greatest achievements and am just re-living the whole thing with my four year old son who has been on an Astronaut trip for about the last year or so. The TV specials and the improved footage make for great entertainment.

555
I really need to say no more when you do such a startling character job on yourself.

Sad rude ignorant little man

Hi,

I just wanted to see if there was anyone that thought there was things that were hidden on the mission.

I still think it is an amazing achievement, especially as is suggested that a well hung PC of today would have more computing power than they had.

I saw the program Simon, thought the hairdresser incident was quite amusing, got to give it points for a great money making idea. $50 for a strand of hair.

As for keeping them on the ground I suppose it was along the same lines as they tried with Guy Gibson after the Dam Busters raid, unfortunately he did not want to stay out of the action.

They are all brave men however you look at it.

Cheers

John

Maybe as far fetched as the aliens

On July 20, 1969, commander of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, Neil Armstrong was the first person to set foot on the moon. His first words after stepping on the moon, "That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind", were televised to Earth and heard by millions. But just before he re-entered the lander, he made the enigmatic remark:

"Good luck, Mr. Gorsky." Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. Over the years many people questioned Armstrong as to what the "Good luck Mr. Gorsky" statement meant, but Armstrong always just smiled. On July 5, 1995, in Tampa Bay, Florida, while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. This time he finally responded. Mr. Gorsky had died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question.

In 1938 when he was a kid in a small Midwest town, he was playing baseball with a friend in the backyard. His friend hit a fly ball, which landed in his neighbor’s yard by the bedroom windows. His neighbors were Mr. and Mrs. Gorsky.

As he leaned down to pick up the ball, young Armstrong heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky. "Sex! You want sex?! You’ll get sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"

Sorry John, it's a nice story but it never happened.