[Moonbase-discuss] Re: Moonbase-discuss: "Yuri's Night"
Randall Clague
rclague@rclague.net
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:22:22 -0800
<html>
At 11:48 AM 03/16/2002, JonAlexandr@aol.com wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font color="#0000A0"><i>Anyway, it
can be argued that Yuri Gagarin's flight into space was a stunt, whereas
the first human landing on the Moon was a concerted effort to show the
possibilities of a multiplanet species (by some of those involved, at
least).</i></font></blockquote><br>
Quite the contrary - as much as I admire the people involved, Apollo was
the stunt. A huge, memorable, and important stunt, but a
stunt. One measure of "stuntiness" is how many times the
achievement is repeated. In Gagarin's case, that figure is well
over 200, and still climbing. In Apollo's case, that figure is 5,
and will remain at 5 for the foreseeable future.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font color="#0000A0"><i>Which date
is more symbolically important -- July 20 or April 12? July 20
marks the anniversary of the first human Moon landing -- and the first
successful soft landing of a probe on Mars. April 12 marks the
first human orbit of Earth -- and the first launch of a partially
reusable space vehicle.</i></font></blockquote><br>
July 20, because of the moon landing. No one remembers
Viking. Apollo will be remembered for generations. Apollo was
our generation's Columbus.<br><br>
BTW, if one compares the time lines of explorations of the New World to
those of exploration of space, one feels less bad that it's taking so
long to Get Out There. And those people had backing from major
governments and churches - we don't.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font color="#0000A0"><i>Which is
more relevant to the future of life on
Earth?</i></font></blockquote><br>
Gagarin. Shuttle is, in retrospect, a stupid idea. You don't
subject your primary cargo carrier to the "Failure Is Not An
Option" engineering requirements of American manned vehicles.
You build it like a Delta or a Titan (but not a Titan IV) or a Soyuz or a
Zenit. Of course, you also don't strap your crews into something
that can't be shut down. They man-rated solids? Whose idea
was that?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font color="#0000A0"><i>Which date
will be most fondly remembered a thousand years from
now?</i></font></blockquote><br>
Apollo. It was glorious.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font color="#0000A0"><i>What, in
fact, was dreamed of in the millennia before -- going into space or going
to the Moon?</i></font></blockquote><br>
They were considered the same thing. Where was there to go in
space, but the moon? (Sagan called this "planetary
chauvinism." O'Neill jumped on it. O'Neill was
wrong.)<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font color="#0000A0"><i>What was
the 'pull'?</i></font></blockquote><br>
Romance, mostly. Just like now.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font color="#0000A0"><i>I think
that going to the Moon showed a multifaceted mastery of skills needed for
survival in the new environment of space. Going into orbit was like
a fish jumping out of water. In evolutionary terms, I think that
the former is much more important, both symbolically and
practically.</i></font></blockquote><br>
The former is more important symbolically. No question about
it. Seeing Earth as a little blue oasis all by itself in a harsh
cosmos changed mankind, for the better. But the latter is more
important practically. We launch man-rated rockets into space about
once a month. The multi-faceted variety of skills we developed to
go the moon aren't being used. They would be on a manned Mars
mission...but we aren't doing a manned Mars mission.<br><br>
The way to make space achievable to the likes of you and me is to make it
affordable. (Dennis Tito helped a lot - he opened the door, which
cannot now be shut - but I don't have $20 million to spend on going
around in circles, even if those circles are 200 miles up.) The
keys to affordability are simplicity and repetition: you do it over and
over and over again, and you get good at it. This is the Russian
approach. It works.<br><br>
-R<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font face="arial">--<br>
No electrons were harmed in the creation of this message<br>
PETE - People for the Ethical
Treatment of Electrons<br>
Randall
Clague
rclague@rclague.net<br>
</font></html>