50th Anniversary of Moon Landing

[5x5]

Here's a link to a post with a number of activities in the U.S. that you may want to build into any summer travel plans you have.

50th Anniversary

No sense clicking the link if you happen to be one of the people who believes it never really happened. But even then you could still go to one in appreciation of the massive scale of the fabrication itself and the awesomeness of the 50 year (and counting) cover up.

[digits_]

It actually makes me sad, knowing that he pinnacle of human exploration happened 50 years ago, and there's nothing else in sight that is even remotely close.

[200hr Wonder]

[Heliian]

If you haven't seen the new movie "Apollo 11", go and see it, what a fascinating time.

[Old fella]

‘69 the year I graduated high school, I remember it well. That and the real Woodstock

[digits_]

We need a new space race.

Shall we set up a gofundme for a space program for Kim Jong-un? That would be the best way to get the Western world to cooperate and start a Mars colony.

[jakeandelwood]

I've always liked the faked Mars landing movie "Capricorn One", great old movie.

[TeePeeCreeper]

CNN is currently playing a good doc about it....

[lownslow]

I thought it was well known that NASA hires Stanley Kubrick to film the moon landing. As the perfectionist he was, he filmed it on location.

[jakeandelwood]

I thought it was well known that NASA hires Stanley Kubrick to film the moon landing. As the perfectionist he was, he filmed it on location.

That's a good one

[iflyforpie]

It’s sad that it’s no longer the limits of technology that hold us back, but the ability to pay for it.

That was a bright spot in the Cold War where nations competed with technological advances and scientific achievements rather than finding new and creative ways to kill everyone on the planet.

[digits_]

It’s sad that it’s no longer the limits of technology that hold us back, but the ability to pay for it.

That was a bright spot in the Cold War where nations competed with technological advances and scientific achievements rather than finding new and creative ways to kill everyone on the planet.

I think it is even sadder than that. It's our ability to pay for the liability that is holding us back.I have the impression that too many subcontractors are just too afraid to develop something at a normal cost, which makes liability and lawyer costs go up too much.

If you're cynical, that would have been another advantage of (cold) wars. Nobody cares about liability, just get things done.

[photofly]

That was a bright spot in the Cold War where nations competed with technological advances and scientific achievements rather than finding new and creative ways to kill everyone on the planet.

Not so fast, cowboy. The only reason anyone went into space was to prove to the other side that since this side's missile technology was reliable and accurate enough to send people to the moon that it would have absolutely no difficulty reliably delivering an armada of thermonuclear warheads to Moscow.

If you really want motivation to achieve something, you had better have someone else to prove something to.

[jakeandelwood]

It’s sad that it’s no longer the limits of technology that hold us back, but the ability to pay for it.

That was a bright spot in the Cold War where nations competed with technological advances and scientific achievements rather than finding new and creative ways to kill everyone on the planet.
[/quote



Technological advancements are always a byproduct of war, but the bottom line is the technology is meant to harm whether in offence or defence. It's nice if the technology can be used for a good thing after the war is done. It's sad how it's war that motivates countries to create something that's a technological marvel, look at the Avrow Arrow. When was the last time this country did something like that?

[Mach1]

It’s sad that it’s no longer the limits of technology that hold us back, but the ability to pay for it.

No. It's not the lack of ability to pay for it, it's the lack of will to pay for it.

Project Apollo, backed by sufficient funding, was the tangible result of an early national commitment in response to a perceived threat to the United States by the Soviet Union. NASA leaders recognized that while the size of the task was enormous, it was still technologically and financially within their grasp, but they had to move forward quickly. Accordingly, the space agency's annual budget increased from $500 million in 1960 to a high point of $5.2 billion in 1965. The NASA funding level represented 5.3 percent of the federal budget in 1965. A comparable percentage of the $1.23 trillion Federal budget in 1992 would have equaled more than $65 billion for NASA, whereas the agency's actual budget then stood at less than $15 billion.

2015: Defense budget (billions) 637, Defense budget % 16.0, down from 22% in 2007.

It's a matter of priorities more than a matter of budgets and technology.

[iflyforpie]

That was a bright spot in the Cold War where nations competed with technological advances and scientific achievements rather than finding new and creative ways to kill everyone on the planet.

Not so fast, cowboy. The only reason anyone went into space was to prove to the other side that since this side's missile technology was reliable and accurate enough to send people to the moon that it would have absolutely no difficulty reliably delivering an armada of thermonuclear warheads to Moscow.

If you really want motivation to achieve something, you had better have someone else to prove something to.

Not true.

The space race may have been started with ICBMs, but most of the technology used to go to the moon were completely non applicable to war making. Things like huge rockets like the Saturn series capable of propelling a huge mass to escape velocity. Computing transfer orbits to other worlds. Orbital rendezvous and docking. Extravehicular activity. Landing on another world. The US DoD had no use for any of it other that it made America look good.

In fact, a lot of it was the other way around. Grumman was contracted to build the LEM because at the time they were the only American company who’d built an aircraft with two computers in it (the A-6 Intruder). IBMs guidance package for the Saturn V was based on what was already installed in ICBMs.

[quote=iflyforpie post_id=<a href="tel:1082383">1082383</a> time=<a href="tel:1561406207">1561406207</a> user_id=16238]
It’s sad that it’s no longer the limits of technology that hold us back, but the ability to pay for it.

No. It's not the lack of ability to pay for it, it's the lack of will to pay for it. [/quote]

Touché. It’s too bad some of the military industrial complex can’t lobby for space exploration the way they lobby for implements of death.

[rookiepilot]

"Budget realities are stark. Entitlements --- Social Security plus Medicaid and Medicare plus unemployment insurance and, for the time being, Obamacare --- already absorb 70% of all federal spending."

"The relatively rapid expansion in such spending has already raised its proportion of all federal spending from some 43% 20 years ago to its present dominant position"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezra ... 8289315892

The US would be swimming in money for space or anything else:

It only has to do 2 things -- (same as us).

In a word: hammer the retirees. Raise the age for social security to 75,
And control medical costs.
Both must be done.

[photofly]

In fact, a lot of it was the other way around. Grumman was contracted to build the LEM because at the time they were the only American company who’d built an aircraft with two computers in it (the A-6 Intruder). IBMs guidance package for the Saturn V was based on what was already installed in ICBMs.

I think you misunderstood (and inadvertantly reinforce) my point, which was that the purpose of the space programme was to demonstrate to the Russians (and the US public) that US missile technology as it then existed was already sufficiently reliable to be used in manned missions. The Russians and the US electorate got the very clear message that if the guidance package (and every other critical technology) already installed in US ICBMs was good enough to put behind a Saturn V rocket carrying US citizens, it would without doubt do the job of delivering nukes to Moscow when asked.

The manned space programme wasn't a trail blazer for forthcoming military technology, it was a demonstrator for what the US could already do, and one less likely to cause a global thermonuclear conflict than actually launching a few trial ICBMs to the USSR to show off.

In the atmosphere of the 50's and 60's, space warfare was believed by every politician and member of the public (including Russian politicians, and the Russian public) to be the next big thing. You cannot with a straight face claim that there was no political-military advantage in being seen by your enemy to be easily and reliably able to put enormous things into space, to become expert at orbital rendezvous, and the rest.

Remember that Sputnik caused enormous public panic in the US, from fear of what the Soviets' newly demonstrated abilities meant for the next war, and this was something the US political machine needed to throw back to the USSR, magnified a thousand times. It has nothing to do with whether the Pentagon was really interested in using teflon, velcro, and pens that write upside down, or not.

The space race was not at its heart a laudable peaceful time-out from the military brinksmanship of the cold war; it was very much part of it.

[ogc]

There are things moving towards the moon and maybe Mars. Just dont depend on NASA and the US Government to fund it directly.

Our best chance in my opinion of getting there soon lies with the private companies.

I would not be in the slightest bit surprised to see them get us back first. It is however going to be at the very least 5 years before that happens.

[C-GGGQ]

In fact, a lot of it was the other way around. Grumman was contracted to build the LEM because at the time they were the only American company who’d built an aircraft with two computers in it (the A-6 Intruder). IBMs guidance package for the Saturn V was based on what was already installed in ICBMs.

I think you misunderstood (and inadvertantly reinforce) my point, which was that the purpose of the space programme was to demonstrate to the Russians (and the US public) that US missile technology as it then existed was already sufficiently reliable to be used in manned missions. The Russians and the US electorate got the very clear message that if the guidance package (and every other critical technology) already installed in US ICBMs was good enough to put behind a Saturn V rocket carrying US citizens, it would without doubt do the job of delivering nukes to Moscow when asked.

The manned space programme wasn't a trail blazer for forthcoming military technology, it was a demonstrator for what the US could already do, and one less likely to cause a global thermonuclear conflict than actually launching a few trial ICBMs to the USSR to show off.

In the atmosphere of the 50's and 60's, space warfare was believed by every politician and member of the public (including Russian politicians, and the Russian public) to be the next big thing. You cannot with a straight face claim that there was no political-military advantage in being seen by your enemy to be easily and reliably able to put enormous things into space, to become expert at orbital rendezvous, and the rest.

Remember that Sputnik caused enormous public panic in the US, from fear of what the Soviets' newly demonstrated abilities meant for the next war, and this was something the US political machine needed to throw back to the USSR, magnified a thousand times. It has nothing to do with whether the Pentagon was really interested in using teflon, velcro, and pens that write upside down, or not.

The space race was not at its heart a laudable peaceful time-out from the military brinksmanship of the cold war; it was very much part of it.

Yes, basically "If we can safely, accurately, and repeatedly land men on the moon. Trust me when I say I can put a rocket through the Kremlin, east side, second floor, 4th window from the right if you make me"

[Beefitarian]

I like the gofund me idea but forget Kim jong.
I say digits and I go and live stream it on the internet. He's been to the north pole, let's do this!

I have a great gag planned for when we return through the van allen belt.

[digits_]

I like the gofund me idea but forget Kim jong.
I say digits and I go and live stream it on the internet. He's been to the north pole, let's do this!

I have a great gag planned for when we return through the van allen belt.

Do you think we can do it in a 172?

[Beefitarian]

No.

Even I know we need a pressurized cabin and rocket engines.

I may have gone higher than the book number on altitude once back in the old days with an instructor that was curious how high a student pilot could get one to go.

We probably didn't even get hypoxia and we didn't have an oxygen bottle.

[corethatthermal]

WHY go to the moon again and WHY go to Mars? We have enough problems on this here little planet to overcome !

[C-GGGQ]

Cause if we didn't then they'd have to spend those billions on something useful