CBS News - Apollo 11 Moon Landing, July 1969
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_sWmD6NvMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9MA61kH5E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2XGFSPIhiM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8X5Xhvx1EE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvr4zPoydaM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrNPxx1Db50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5R6847eX_0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlvEGR1hhk8

Yup, and I'm very excited about it all. I love space exploration. 

My girlfriend thought we might celebrate by eating Moon Pies this evening (if we can find someone around here who still sells the darn things). I suggested we get out come green cheese, but she wasn't excited about that one...

To the moon!

This guy stuck his arse through his car window and said something about the Moon, I wonder if he meant this!!

For those of us old enough, do you remember where you were when it happened?

Quote - For those of us old enough, do you remember where you were when it happened?

I suspect in my cot, possibly screaming :)

Quote - For those of us old enough, do you remember where you were when it happened?

I was in my living room with my brother and my mom, watching on TV. I was taking summer school, but we got off that day for the event. My memory is a little fuzzy about the actual "one small step"; I remember my mom was trying to get me to go to bed because I had school the next day, but I was trying to stay up. Can't recall if I saw him step off the lander live or on a later news broadcast.

My father and I watched it in total silence (the "generation gap" thing was going strong that year).

Finally I said, "I can't believe what I'm watching!" He agreed and we "broke the ice" as they say. The moon looked very different that night and still does.

It may not be much , but here is my image to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the landing of Apollo 11.

The commemorative is quite fitting.  I watched everything live and waited impatiently for Neil Armstrong to make that first step.  What a historic accomplishment!  A salute to all the faceless participants who worked together to make a significant mark in human endeavor.  May we never back down from such challengers and set our minds to persevere and endure.

How about a Mission To Mars? I think it's time to send a crew to mars.
it's long overdue

we're all supposed to be flying around in space anyway. what ever happened to that idea?

Quote - we're all supposed to be flying around in space anyway. what ever happened to that idea?

Have you seen all the idiots on the roads? And you want them zipping around your head?

Oh, me, oh my.

:lol:

I remember  being 13 years old and sitting in front of a vintage 1960's  black and white tv set. Watching Uncle Walter, and I think if I remember right Arthur C Clarke beside him at the space center in Florida. It's to bad they are now gone. They would have loved all this. I had the honor to meet the apollo astronauts at the 25th aniver of the moon landings at the EAA fly-in in Oshkosh, Wi years back.

I'm very disappointed with the lack of progress made within the last 40 years since that Moon landing.

as someone who was born in that decade who looked forward to the day when we all could make trips into the galaxy it has yet to happen.

if you compare the progress made from around the time of Charles Lindberg's famous 1927 nonstop cross atlantic flight and the apollo 11 landing it add's up to 42 years.

very little if any progress has been made in space navigation since 1969. we are still WAY behind.

does anyone recall the show "Space 1999" and how they thought as a kid that this was the way it was 'gonna be in the year 1999'

well it's a decade later and we're still far from it!

Actually we've gone a lot farther into space since then..... we've just done
it without human pilots.   We've learned a lot about Mars in the last few
years (former rivers, present atmosphere, possible life), thanks to unmanned rovers
and orbiters. The only reason for manned flights was to impress the Soviets.

my parents sent me to bed...the only thing I can't forgive them...;)

I was working. When they got close to landing, everything came to a halt and everyone was glued to the tv. When Armstrong said his Tranquility base here.. the Eagle has landed, the whole place erupted in applause..... Not much work got done from that point:)

Ed

 Robots are good.....as forerunners. But a human crew could have covered all the explorations of Mars that have occurred over the years in the space of weeks. And they could have done onsite analysis and decision making that could have led to much more data gathered in that short time. Plus the amount of applied science and rollover applications that come about during the next manned step into space would be incredible. People never bother to actually think about what exists now that would not, or would be so crude as to be no more than a toy if we hadn't gone to the moon.

For instance:

The hydrogen fuel cells they are working on for transportation are directly from the space program. That includes the fuel cells they are getting ready to field to run laptops on off the shelf butane canisters.

The materials sciences that makes structures like those humongous wind turbines possible.

And the list is literally too long to get into now. The space program is the only government program that has paid for itself in created jobs and industry, and it has done so at a rate of return that Wall Street can only wet dream about. And that push 40 years ago is still producing jobs in subsidiary and teriary ways.

Want to actually help the education infrastructure? Commit to a 15 year plan to go to Mars.....and not with a throwaway vehicle. Build and honest to God space =ship=. Take all we've learned since Mercury first lifted off, a build a vehicle intended to go from planet to planet and never land. Have a dedicated ships crew, and a separate sciences and landing crew section. Put scaled down machine shops on board so that repairs can be made underway. The structure in no real issue; it could be built in sections and assembled in orbit (gee, just what building ISS helped solidify). Power is no issue; the nuclear plants the Navy uses in the 688 attack subs would be more than sufficient, and it's reliability record is unmatched. Computer support is no issue; we have more processing power on our desktops than ever went to the moon....or on the shuttle, for that matter. Maneuvering systems exist and are basically off the shelf. Landing vehicles would have to be designed, of course....but look at all the single stage to orbit vehicles that competed a few years ago. Again, off the shelf. The only things we do not have atm are a regenerative life support system that would last the round trip and then some, and the actual engines....and we never will until we actually have need for them. That is where you involve the colleges. The research could be farmed out across the country, and the financial tags would help a lot stay affordable. And it would give the kids something to dream for, again. Currently there is no real sense of adventure in higher education; it's nothing more now than a conduit into one of those higher paying jobs....which, despite the stereotypes, doesn't really motivate kids. Adventure does. Passion does. Something like this could breathe new life back into the educational system (and be honest; what would have hit your cool button harder....going to college to get a degree to ultimately dork out in a business environment, or getting a chance actually help build the engine of mankinds first true space ship, hmmm?).

And what do we do with the ship when it gets back....?
Resupply it, refit it, put a new crew on her, and send her back out there on another mission. And this kind of platform would have all sorts of uses. It could easily deploy comm sats on the way to its target, so that there is boosted communications with Earth....or any other structure. You could launch outer system explorers while enroute to your destination, and do so from positions that make the trip shorter, or more efficient. For that matter, you could commission Hubble 2, and place it in free space orbit around the sun. What new things would we be able to see away from the light pollution of the earth and just a bit further away from the sun?

DaleB does bring up a very valid point.  Except we would speaking about 2 large starships capable of sustaining a crew each of hundreds of individuals.  Each vehicle self-sustaining and fully equipped.  Gardens for food, sleeping quarters, machine shops for manufacturing, laboratories for research and development.  Of course, some logistics must be addressed like sanitation and waste management, long-term medical and chronic care, child birth and death.  Remember, these missions will be long-term, perhaps spanning 10 or more years.  And if something goes wrong, there is no instantaneous return to Earth.  The vehicles would have to sling-shot back for an emergency return.  That is the reason for 2 ships rather than 1.

I agree 100% Dale. I think this could  energize a lot of people.

I say let's get started like yesterday! 

It would be great to just say do it and have it get done.  But remember, the cost will be staggering, it would need to be an international effort, and we will definitely need to rely on technology that still needs to be developed.

Quote - [...] we will definitely need to rely on technology that still needs to be developed.

Not to mention psychology. The best estimates I've seen is that the there-and-back-plus-exploration time couldn't be less than about 18 months, given the orbits of our two planets and what is known today about rocket engines. Even allowing for being able to use all of the surface area while in low gravity, the mission vehicle to Mars probably won't be much bigger than the size of a one bedroom apartment.

Can you imagine spending 18 months in a one bedroom apartment with five of your co-workers without ever being able to get away?

Could get mighty interesting, I tell ya.

:biggrin:

It takes too long to get to mars and back IMO for a mission there to be feasible and there are too many political issues that would have to be settled first. 

With long term space missions, the astronauts have to make special accommodations to keep their bodies healthy because they would deteriorate otherwise in a zero gravity environment.  It takes a lot of food to feed a person so to feed a crew of 100-200, you’d need a ton of room to grow everything plus you’d have a lot of people unhappy they can’t get a burger or a steak.

A nuclear power plant?  We are starting to run into a power shortage here in the US, our nuclear plants are getting too old and we haven’t been able to build a new one in over 20 years.  I think there’d be too much fear of the shuttle or rocket transporting it blowing up during launch or in orbit to allow something like that to happen.

Then you’d have to worry a lot about crew composition.  In the early 70s, it wasn’t as big a problem when we had a bunch of guys going to the moon, today an all-male crew would be a tougher sell.  So are you going to add women to the crew?  If yes, you are going to have to expect some hanky-panky going on and account for it somehow.

What about pregnancy?  Are you going to encourage it for research purposes?  Are you going to have the facilities and people on board who can deliver a child as well as enough baby food on board in the event that a baby or 3 do come along?  Are you going to require the women to take birth control for two-three years or have the facilities on board to have an abortion?  Or is everyone going to be sterilized in some way?  Every decision you make is going to cause controversy and if you do allow unsterilized women on board, you are going to have to add extra weight for their reproductive “needs”, whatever you’ve deemed those to be, and have to do defend the costs and morality associated with the decision.

What about religion?  If you do have a small community instead of a small crew, they may ask for a pastor.  Now it’s a right for the crew members to practice their own religion.  But if you bring a priest on board the ship, that’s going to cause atheist lawsuits because there is going to be prayers and possibly marriages and communions.  Atheists won’t like that.  Now if you only choose atheists or agnostics well then you are being discriminatory against other religions.  If you tell people they can’t be religious while on board you are denying them their human rights.

Finally who’s going to be the first person to step on Mars?  With Apollo 11 we had the choice between 2 white guys so it wasn’t an issue.  However if we have a diverse crew going to Mars and a white guy is the first person to step on Mars, we are racist and sexist for letting a white man be first again.  However if a woman or a non-white steps on Mars first there are still going to be charges of sexism and/or racism because that person will have allegedly been choose specifically because they weren’t a man or a white.  Then you’d have a counter allegation and instead of a great moment for humanity, you’d leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth over allegations of (reverse) sexism/racism.  Plus you'd ruin the experience for the person who made that first step.  If that person decides to quote the bible or makes a religious statement, it’s going to cause a stir.  If that person isn’t allowed to, it’s denying him his rights and will cause a stir.

I’m sorry for bringing politics into this discussion, but do you guys see where I am going with this?  I’ve tried to keep things neutral but in order for a mission to mars, especially one with a larger crew, there are going to have to be a lot more things you will have to take into account before hand and you are going to have to realize there are going to be a ton of ramifications no matter what course you choose to pursue.  So if you are planning to make it another great moment for humanity instead of fodder for a political fight, lots of things will have to be worked out first.

I think you may be over thinking this, Winterclaw.  IMO, we should consider a mission to Mars as a first step towards colonization.  If so much time and effort is going to be invested into such an endeavor, then why not make it a one way trip.  Launch unmanned payloads to deliver consumables, ship containers and habitats on the Martian surface.  Create solar-wind powered behemoth crafts to sail between worlds and settle permanently into Martian orbit.  In the end, those inhabitants will become a separate autonomous world with very little ties to it's home world.

For anyone interested, read Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars to get a perspective on Martian civilization development after the colonization by humans.  It offers an interesting and complex view on interplanetary survival and evolution.

I agree with **hborre.

I think this would energize alot of people as well as re-energize alot of people.

the time has come to explore new worlds! **

I don't think I'm overthinking it because at least some of these things have to be accounted for.  That and you see these sorts of things happening all the time.  In this day and age you pretty much have to take into account certain ramifications.  A headline of "Baby Starves to Death in Space" because it didn't have baby food or formula or because it didn't get all the shots it needed would be a complete disaster for NASA.  Not to mention the fact it could have developmental problems because it didn't start growing up in a gravity enviroment.

While I'm thinking about it, you'd also have to have a contingenicy plan in place in the event that a crew member dies.  Anything can happen in two years and you don't want a decomposing body floating around with you.

The problem with settling and terraforming mars is that it has low gravity, very little atmosphere and little sunlight.  I wouldn't even think about a permanent settlement there at this time as the planet needs a ton of prep work if we don't want to have people living in a building all the time.

We could add mass by dropping a few hundred large asteroids on it.  If we drop them right we could knock Mars into a newer, closer orbit.  Gas for the atmosphere could be brought in from the other planets (not Earth).  Venus has tons of CO2, but that would need to be converted.

I think if we are going to be serious about going to mars permanently , there are a ton of things that need to be worked out first.  I don't think this is the kind of thing that can be done in only one generation with our current technology.

I just remembered another, even bigger problem with going to Mars: getting there alive.

Half of the space probes we've sent out to mars have been destroyed or failed to make it there.  With our current abilities, that means if we sent a ship today, there's a 50-50 chance the crew won't even make it there alive.  That is an extremely risky proposition and that risk would have to come down before we could make the decision to send people there.

Would you believe that one of the major NASA topic involve death and burial on prolonged space flight.  These guys are trying to think of every possible contingency.

Quote - It takes too long to get to mars and back IMO for a mission there to be feasible and there are too many political issues that would have to be settled first. 

 

With long term space missions, the astronauts have to make special accommodations to keep their bodies healthy because they would deteriorate otherwise in a zero gravity environment.  It takes a lot of food to feed a person so to feed a crew of 100-200, you’d need a ton of room to grow everything plus you’d have a lot of people unhappy they can’t get a burger or a steak.

???
I never said anything about hundreds of people. Try around 18-24, crew and explorers. MRE's aren't all that cool, but they would do in a pinch (never minding the garlic fart smell of the things....); but the food and waste management is part of that regenerative life support system I was talking about. There have been a couple of experiments, but with more flash than substance. And research has already shown that resistance can ameliorate the degeneration, and a simple pressurized section that rotates fast enough to provide 'gravity' for excercise would make it even less of an issue. Not for the whole ship, but if the crew could work out daily in abnout .7g, things would stay in much better shape. > Quote -  

A nuclear power plant?  We are starting to run into a power shortage here in the US, our nuclear plants are getting too old and we haven’t been able to build a new one in over 20 years.  I think there’d be too much fear of the shuttle or rocket transporting it blowing up during launch or in orbit to allow something like that to happen.

That has been due to ignorance and scaremongering....and reality is going to force that construction again, unless someone finally teases fusion out of the works. And only an idiot would be concerned about such a possibility, because the vessel would never be launched fueled to begin with. The fuel rods would go up much later, after the thing was installed...and there is a significant difference between radiological signatures between an unused fuel rod, and one that has enjoyed critical mass. Admittedly it wouldn't be good for you to take home and sleep with it, but the gamma output of unexcited uranium fuel is not going to make you glow if you see it. > Quote -  

Then you’d have to worry a lot about crew composition.  In the early 70s, it wasn’t as big a problem when we had a bunch of guys going to the moon, today an all-male crew would be a tougher sell.  So are you going to add women to the crew?  If yes, you are going to have to expect some hanky-panky going on and account for it somehow.

A mixed gender crew would be needed for psychological reasons, as well as politically correct ones. And as for hanky and panky, let em get a room. That's what condoms and birth control pills are for. Keep in mind that astronauts are not stupid people, and getting knocked up a million miles from the ob-gyn (never mind the the store that sells 0g pampers) would be the height of stupidity. No doubt there would be no copulating agreements that the crew would have to sign....which would be worth hanging on the wall in the toilet after the ship was underway.

Now there -would- have to be at least on psych on board, to do whatever (s)he could to keep any personal issues from flaring into fights and what not. But that will happen sooner or later, just as it was inevitable that we would lose people in operations. I would have preferred if Challenger hadn't been lost to bean counterism....but Columbia was pure Demon Murphy. > Quote -  

What about pregnancy?  Are you going to encourage it for research purposes?  Are you going to have the facilities and people on board who can deliver a child as well as enough baby food on board in the event that a baby or 3 do come along?  Are you going to require the women to take birth control for two-three years or have the facilities on board to have an abortion?  Or is everyone going to be sterilized in some way?  Every decision you make is going to cause controversy and if you do allow unsterilized women on board, you are going to have to add extra weight for their reproductive “needs”, whatever you’ve deemed those to be, and have to do defend the costs and morality associated with the decision.

If it really is a worry, they can sterilize both sexes with surgical clips, making it reversible upon return. And no, halfway to Mars is no place to find out about pregnancy complications. > Quote -  

What about religion?  If you do have a small community instead of a small crew, they may ask for a pastor.  Now it’s a right for the crew members to practice their own religion.  But if you bring a priest on board the ship, that’s going to cause atheist lawsuits because there is going to be prayers and possibly marriages and communions.  Atheists won’t like that.  Now if you only choose atheists or agnostics well then you are being discriminatory against other religions.  If you tell people they can’t be religious while on board you are denying them their human rights.

Religion hasn't been an issue so far in any space travels, has it? Because you can bet all the various astronauts and cosmonauts have had differing views of God and Man and The Universe. I could see a no prostelythizing agreement, simply to keep the tensions down. But what one does in the privacy of their quarters is their own business. > Quote -  

Finally who’s going to be the first person to step on Mars?  With Apollo 11 we had the choice between 2 white guys so it wasn’t an issue.  However if we have a diverse crew going to Mars and a white guy is the first person to step on Mars, we are racist and sexist for letting a white man be first again.  However if a woman or a non-white steps on Mars first there are still going to be charges of sexism and/or racism because that person will have allegedly been choose specifically because they weren’t a man or a white.  Then you’d have a counter allegation and instead of a great moment for humanity, you’d leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth over allegations of (reverse) sexism/racism.  Plus you'd ruin the experience for the person who made that first step.  If that person decides to quote the bible or makes a religious statement, it’s going to cause a stir.  If that person isn’t allowed to, it’s denying him his rights and will cause a stir.

 

I’m sorry for bringing politics into this discussion, but do you guys see where I am going with this?  I’ve tried to keep things neutral but in order for a mission to mars, especially one with a larger crew, there are going to have to be a lot more things you will have to take into account before hand and you are going to have to realize there are going to be a ton of ramifications no matter what course you choose to pursue.  So if you are planning to make it another great moment for humanity instead of fodder for a political fight, lots of things will have to be worked out first.

Not to be a naif, but screw politics. If you play that game, you'll spend so much time trying to be oh so PC you'll never acomplish one bloody thing. This wouldn't be a feel good encounter session; it would be a trip to our closest planetary neighbor. One that has an atmosphere, and all the dangers that arise from moving dense gases. Not to mention all the things that could be in the deep dark between here and there that could reduce that ship to a smear of metal and frozen meat. You get the best people you can find, period. And you make the process transparent, so that there is no question in a rational mind as to the fairness of it (those who want to take umbrage will, regardless, so why even worry about them).

I don't claim this would be cheap; just that it would be the most economical. Building the thing would be hideously expensive, no two ways.....on the first trip. On the second trip, its the cost of refit and resupply. That is why the supercarrier, for all its expense, is still a viable warship. Over its life, you get more than your money's worth out of it. It would be the same with this hypothesized ship. Say you got 15 missions out of her before retiring her. You only built her once, and got 14 freebies for your money. And that doesn't count all the science and experience she brought back. IF we go the capsule route again, it will be build it, use it once, stick it in a museum, wash rinse repeat. Manned missle vehicles couldn't have done a fraction of what the STS has done....and cheap is not a virtue...

Attached Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5851435/Apollo-11-hoax-one-in-four-people-do-not-believe-in-moon-landing.html

I was able to watch the moon landing late at night past my bedtime.  As Robert Klein once observed, a lot of credit has to be given to Neal Armstrong for not trying to make a buck on his first words on the moon. Instead of "One small step for man...", he could have shouted, "Coca Cola!"

Much as I'd love to see a manned trip to Mars, I rather doubt I'll see it in my lifetime.

Quote - For those of us old enough, do you remember where you were when it happened?

More than likely I was in my crib when this happened. My mom states we were all at the neighbors house cause they where the only ones with a tv at the time.

And to imagine that now we can actually see events unfold in HD.