Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mars a giant step, but 'doable' Apollo 11 commander recalls moon mission, space race with Soviets
The Huntsville Times ^ | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 | WAYNE SMITH

Posted on 05/23/2007 4:56:11 AM PDT by Condor 63

NASHVILLE - The first man to walk on the moon told an audience of nearly 3,000 Intergraph customers and employees Tuesday that although a mission to Mars would be difficult, it can be done.

Neil Armstrong, the commander of Apollo 11, spoke for nearly an hour on stage at the Gaylord Opryland Convention Center, reflecting on the space age that began 50 years ago.

(Excerpt) Read more at al.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: mars; nasa; neilarmstrong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: Brilliant

How do you figure? Lack of will? Technology? Cash? What?


21 posted on 05/23/2007 6:44:56 AM PDT by Freeport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IndyTiger

Or, alternatively, send some spacecraft containing only fuel and supplies in advance of the trip. Such cargo could be sent with existing technology (in no particular hurry, using the most economical orbit and means of propulsion) long before a manned craft was ready. A supply line of ships sailing the solar wind could be established in anticipation of a large colony.


22 posted on 05/23/2007 6:48:05 AM PDT by Ragnar54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

And these are what??? We have no commertial fusion reactors yet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JointEuropeanTorus_internal.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fusion_target_implosion_on_NOVA_laser.jpg

http://www.iter.org/

http://www.jet.efda.org/


23 posted on 05/23/2007 6:49:31 AM PDT by Freeport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I don’t know about decades but I do know he refuses any autograph requests.

I think I remember him appearing when the 30th anniv. of Apollo 11 happened in 1999.


24 posted on 05/23/2007 6:51:58 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Why?

At age 2, Jesse Owens didn’t leap up and run a 10-second 100 yard dash.

We’ve got to take steps. We’ve been to the moon. We then go to Mars. Then Saturn or Neptune. Then out of our Solar System.

Explore. Advance. Improve.


25 posted on 05/23/2007 6:53:37 AM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

All of the above. For one, it would take a year to get a spaceship from Earth to Mars. You’d have to resupply it several times along the way. Even if you could do it, which is highly doubtful, it would cost a ton of money, and the astronauts would not be in any physical condition to perform the mission when they got there, much less be in condition for a one year return flight.


26 posted on 05/23/2007 6:56:26 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The more rational and sustainable approach would be to ignore Mars altogether, and focus on building space infrastructure closer to home. Once that's in place, Mars will be a natural and relatively easy goal.

An O'Neill colony, built with lunar material, could drift towards Mars at a leisurely pace.

27 posted on 05/23/2007 7:00:49 AM PDT by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
We’ve got to take steps. We’ve been to the moon. We then go to Mars. Then Saturn or Neptune. Then out of our Solar System.

Well, see, you've missed the problem right there. We went to the moon .. almost 40 years ago. Full stop.

Why did we stop there? It's really quite simple: the politics didn't support it. And the main reason why the politics didn't support it was that Apollo was essentially a novelty program -- once we actually succeeded in reaching the moon, there was no further return on the investment. Meanwhile, there were more politically compelling alternatives for the money, right here on Earth.

Explore. Advance. Improve.

Sure, but don't be stupid about how you do it. Space travel needs to find some mission that will provide a real return on investment. We don't have that yet, and we never will unless we can put in place some serious orbital infrastructure.

No, it's not sexy -- but infrastructure rarely is.

Oh, and please don't try the tired old "let private enterprise do it" canard. They're even more focused on "return on investment" than the government space program is, and there is no return on manned spaceflight.

The truth is that space is likely to remain a government-funded thing for a long time to come.

28 posted on 05/23/2007 7:06:14 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: P-40; IndyTiger

I’d volunteer Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore for a one way trip to Mars but the payload would be prohibitive, Mars would be ruined, and any re-entry due to an aborted mission would be a serious threat to our planet as well. Guess they’ll just have to stay here as laughing stocks.


29 posted on 05/23/2007 7:14:37 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

If I’m not mistaken, this is the first public appearance he’s made in decades.


You’re mistaken. His recent biography debunked the myth that he was a hermit. Not a publicity hound, and turns down most of the invitations he receives, but that doesn’t mean that he never appears in public. (And this seems to be at a private company’s event, so I don’t know if you consider that “public.”)


30 posted on 05/23/2007 7:17:22 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney (...and another "Constitution-bot"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

“Explore. Advance. Improve.”


YOUR dreams. Brought to you by MY tax dollars, right?


31 posted on 05/23/2007 7:18:56 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney (...and another "Constitution-bot"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

If I read my history books correctly, Columbus, Magellan, DeSoto, Pizarro, all of the explorers into the unkown or newly discovered were all government funded.

I’m an ultra-conservative sitting in a NASA office. Think about NASA this way - We spend money on research to find out what WON’T work. What does work, we give to the public.

IF we stop pressing forward in exploration, our sciences will slowly begin to die. The desire to “find out more” applies to space, also.


32 posted on 05/23/2007 7:20:48 AM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“I don’t really think it’s doable under the present circumstances.”

The response from most Americans when asked about going to Mars is a big yawn.

Mars ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.


33 posted on 05/23/2007 7:22:50 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
>>>>>>Would Americans want their first representative on another planet to be a death row criminal?<<<<<

Why not? Many Americans liked having Philanderer, rapist, sworn perjuror, war criminal and benefactor of Arkancide as 42nd president. The man who brought BJ as a family discussion topic.

How having space Frank Lee Morris can be worse than that?

34 posted on 05/23/2007 7:33:16 AM PDT by DTA (Mr. President, Condi is asleep at the wheel !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Condor 63

Wasn’t he with Crosby, Stills, & Nash...???


35 posted on 05/23/2007 7:35:31 AM PDT by JB in Whitefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frithguild

It appears so.


36 posted on 05/23/2007 7:37:58 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
But the real question is, why should it be done? What is there about Mars that would justify the immense cost of sending a few people to visit? I honestly cannot think of one. The more rational and sustainable approach would be to ignore Mars altogether, and focus on building space infrastructure closer to home. Once that's in place, Mars will be a natural and relatively easy goal. Otherwise, it's just another Apollo program, but with a duration that makes it far too long to be an "event". It would never survive the politics.

You've answered your own question. Without a goal that is in some way exciting, space infrastructure will not be built. The Apollo program inspired a generation of America's youth to go into science and engineering. Sitting in LEO with the shuttle program was accompanied by America's youth fleeing from science and engineering. You want space infrastructure? Make an interesting goal in space.
37 posted on 05/23/2007 7:40:09 AM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
Make an interesting goal in space.

That's right. Make it an American thing--commerce. The Treaty will have to go away; stroke of the pen.

38 posted on 05/23/2007 7:45:05 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
That's right. Make it an American thing--commerce. The Treaty will have to go away; stroke of the pen.

There's just that little problem of making money.

39 posted on 05/23/2007 7:48:23 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
Without a goal that is in some way exciting, space infrastructure will not be built.

And without space infrastructure, there is no way to maintain a credible, sustainable space program. So there would seem to be a chicken-and-egg situation.

The Apollo program inspired a generation of America's youth to go into science and engineering.

True -- that was the payoff from the run-up to the Big Event.

The problem with Apollo was that the missions themselves didn't really provide much in the way of actual returns -- in the end, it was not much more than a cool stunt. After Apollo 11, the general public had pretty much lost interest in the missions, which made it easy prey for politicians who were more interested in using the money to fund Great Society programs.

You want space infrastructure? Make an interesting goal in space.

"Interesting goals" are all very well, but to be useful they must also point to tangible returns. Space is intrinsically cool -- most everybody is thrilled by the idea of manned spaceflight. Where the arguments start is in trying to justify the huge costs involved, which is why finding missions with "tangible returns" is the biggest challenge facing the space program.

40 posted on 05/23/2007 8:40:26 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson