The Moon Landing, One Right Cross for A Man, and Eddie Izzard
Forty years ago today, a human being walked on the moon. It was, I think, the high-water mark for sheer audacity, technical genius, masterful improvisation, and soul-enriching grandeur. Today, it seems like a given that once Apollo 11 leaped toward the sky on a 36-story skyscraper full of high explosive*, it would reach the moon safely and return intact.
Going into space has always been dangerous. We are not built for space. We have these annoying limitations, such as a need for atmosphere, an intolerance for temperatures approaching absolute zero, and soft organs that don’t handle cosmic radiation particularly well. In forty years, our intolerance to the harsh conditions of space haven’t changed. Our technology has made what we need to bring with us smaller, thinner, and more efficient, but we still need it all. I suspect that will always be true.
That said, we still need to go into space. Yes, I said “need”. I have written before about humanity’s need for frontiers to explore, boundaries against which to push. The Space Shuttle just isn’t cutting it. We need bigger and better. We need to be audacious again.
Below the jump, some neat videos.
Here’s footage from the landing itself. Damned amazing, I say.
That’s one right cross from a man…one giant headache for loony conspiracy nuts.
That one comes from Moe Lane who says:
This would be the point when people posting this video are supposed to make the disclaimer that they don’t approve of this sort of behavior …except, really: there’s something deeply satisfying about watching Buzz Aldrin haul off and pop a Fake Moon Landing conspiracy nut in the nose.
Yes. Yes there is.
As thrilling as the original moon landing was, I can’t help but think it would even more thrilling had they taken Eddie Izzard’s idea.
* Thanks to commenter EricH for that phrase. It’s not exactly the one he suggested, but it’s close enough.
Other Posts of Interest:
- Drama and Grease, In Space!
- Forty Years Ago Today, We Dreamed Big
- Shuttle Endeavor Lights Up the Sky
Category: Out in the Black, Rampant Geekery
Sounds like a lot of unnecessary government spending. I'm all for more science research, but space travel provides little bang for the buck. It should be limited to putting in orbit satellites, telescopes, and new sensing technology to detect dark matter. But no more people in space, please. Don't get me wrong, Apollo 11 was cool, and it was a great Cold War victory. Not only that, the rocket technology had obvious military applications. That's what scared us so much about Sputnik. The Soviets sent this message: "we can land a nuclear bomb anywhere in the world in 25 minutes and you can't stop it." That's scary. But the Cold War is over, and we've been there and done that. Let's stick to real science. And we don't need humans to do science research. Often we can't even use humans at all. They're too fragile.
And our souls stagnate. Not every gain is tangible.
I was leaning toward what fostert says and then you have to go zing with that line "And our souls stagnate. Not every gain is tangible." Brilliant and applicable.
I actually wrote more about what pushing back our frontiers does for the human spirit, but I clipped much of it for the sake of brevity.
“And our souls stagnate. Not every gain is tangible.”
Now that's just strange. Two sentences, and I don't even know where to start. The latter concept is easier, because of course no gain is really tangible. No scientist ever made a more tangible contribution than Michael Faraday. Yet he was hauled before Parliament to defend his outrageous scientific spending. They asked him what would become of it. He said that he didn't know but was sure they could tax it. So they gave him more money. Turns out, his research panned out, and that's why you have electricity. Tesla and Edison helped out, but nothing happens if you don't know how electricity relates to magnetism. Faraday proved the relation on an economically viable scale. And proved it on all scales. But he was kind of a tinkerer. It took Maxwell a decade later to prove it. Oddly enough, he proved Special Relativity in the process and didn't know it. I know that because I have actually done the Special Relativity derivation from Maxwell's Equations. It's easier than you'd think.
As for souls stagnating, I can come from a lot of different religious perspectives. And I don't believe souls even exist, but I do believe in bundles of Karma. Whether you call them souls or bundles of karma, they don't stagnate, only you do. You make the choices, your soul is just along for the ride. And don't worry, your soul is in a constant state of bewildered amusement. You don't have to worry about it if you just act in a thoughtful and compassionate manner. Your soul will stop laughing when you die.
And please, Jimmie, don't let your soul stagnate. I may disagree with you for all of eternity, but that doesn't mean I don't care. May your soul be blessed. And may you find your way to bliss, in this world and in all of eternity.
I'm not joking about that. I really do mean that sincerely. I want the best for you. After that, we'll fight.
Overall, I like the new formatting. A little softer in the eyes. But the off and on highlighting in the comments is weird. If you're going to do that, both colors should be different from the background. It makes it seem that some comments are more important than others. Granted, this comment is super-important and should be highlighted. So it should get the extra special background. Man, it's hard to type when you laugh. But seriously, I like the different colors for delineation, but having one the same as the background implies that those comments aren't the good ones. And it implies that this one is awesome. You might want to think about that.
<blockquote cite="fostert">Sounds like a lot of unnecessary government spending. I’m all for more science research, but space travel provides little bang for the buck. It should be limited to putting in orbit satellites, telescopes, and new sensing technology to detect dark matter. But no more people in space, please.You know, I agree with fostert, and that hardly ever happens. The government space program probably doesn't need more funding than it has, to do science research, and people aren't necessary to that process. What I would like to see are legislative changes, which don't cost a cent. Current policy says property rights are strictly Earthbound; no country, and no individual, can own real estate anywhere else. If you discover diamonds on the Moon, then go there and spend months digging a diamond mine, I can legally walk into your mine while you sleep, scoop up the diamonds, and take them back to my spaceship; at that point, they belong to me. Maybe you could eventually recover them, if you can get a court ruling to interpret the law your way–but given that, how much are you willing to invest in sending mining equipment to the Moon?
"You know, I agree with fostert, and that hardly ever happens"
Hey, there's a first time for everything. Even Jimmie and I agree sometimes. But the moon real estate really threw me for a loop. It's an interesting issue, but not very relevant. A simple orbit launch costs about $100 million ($20M in Russia). A moon launch can't really be evaluated now, but it's probably a trillion. Add a couple trillion to that on finding diamonds. It doesn't look very profitable. Stealing diamonds from the Myanmar junta seems much more profitable. And nobody will complain if you do it. In fact, everyone will cheer. Well, except for the Thai. The Thai hate the Burmese with a passion only reserved for the Czech-Russian hatred. But the Thai will still buy illegal gemstones from Burma. Money trumps even hatred. And Thailand wants money, and they don't really care where it comes from. Bangkok is the largest transit point for diamonds. Where do they come from? Let's put it this way. If you're asking, you don't want to know. If you know already, then do you want weapons with that? We have AK-47s at $5 a pop. But you want SAMs, don't you? Welcome to Asia.
Aside from the exploration issue, are there diamonds on the moon? Gravity is really weak there, so there is obviously a lot less pressure to form diamonds. I'm not sure if they could even be formed. But if they do exist, it would take very, very long time to find them. I'd look for bauxite first. That might be there and it would be great building material. Although the refining energy would be outrageous. But if we could define the moon as a bank, they'd get all the government money they'd want, wouldn't they?
Your response is, in summary, that the business case is weak–that misses my point, that the business case can't be written, because the law doesn't permit the activities that would be required. (Diamonds are merely my example of some precious material that could be returned to Earth and sold. Common moon rock would do as well–based on the last sale, in 1993, that's worth $2.2 million per gram. Not that the demand is likely to be at all elastic.)
You say bauxite would be great building material–before I even ask what you'd build, where would you propose to build it? You can't own any land for a refinery, and you can't own mineral rights to collect bauxite in the first place. Good luck getting any investment in that plan.