50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
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.
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.
Being stupid around airplanes is a capital offence and nature is a hanging judge!
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Mark Twain
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Mark Twain
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
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.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:52 pm
- Location: CYVR
- Contact:
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
If you haven't seen the new movie "Apollo 11", go and see it, what a fascinating time.
- Old fella
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2400
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
- Location: I'm retired. I don't want to'I don't have to and you can't make me.
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
‘69 the year I graduated high school, I remember it well. That and the real Woodstock
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
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.
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.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
I've always liked the faked Mars landing movie "Capricorn One", great old movie.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1025
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: in the bush
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
CNN is currently playing a good doc about it....
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
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.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
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.
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.
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
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.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:56 pm 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.
If you're cynical, that would have been another advantage of (cold) wars. Nobody cares about liability, just get things done.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
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.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:56 pm
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.
If you really want motivation to achieve something, you had better have someone else to prove something to.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
iflyforpie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:56 pm 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?
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
No. It's not the lack of ability to pay for it, it's the lack of will to pay for it.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:56 pm It’s sad that it’s no longer the limits of technology that hold us back, but the ability 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.
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
Not true.photofly wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:19 pmNot 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.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:56 pm
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.
If you really want motivation to achieve something, you had better have someone else to prove something to.
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.
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.
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4412
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
"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.
"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.
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
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.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:33 pm
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.
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.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
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.
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.
Re: 50th Anniversary of Moon Landing
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"photofly wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:26 pmI 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.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:33 pm
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.
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.