What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
108 Comments
- firewall1, on 06/21/2009, -1/+28We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years, but haven't seen that type of vigor in the space program since then. The Mars missions keep getting pushed back, and so does the return to the moon. NASA seems to have become a bureaucracy that is too slow to innovate and/or change.
Kind of like GM. - doctechnical, on 06/22/2009, -1/+21I speak as someone old enough to remember watching Armstrong make that first step on television.
The US did not spend all that money to send some clowns to the moon just to pick up moonrocks and drink Tang. It was during the Cold War, and putting our flag on the moon was a HUGE victory in that war. Bottom line, if a nation that has the scientists, technology, resources and spare cash to get men to Luna and bring them back safely, then that's a nation you don't want to mess around with. Period.
This was not done because Americans thought it was a keen idea (although a whole bunch of us did), and there was a LOT of protesting that we were spending money on this pipe dream instead of taking care of the inner cities (I remember a poem that had lines something like "Rats bite my kid a night, but Whitey's on the moon").
The US went a little nuts when the Soviets put Sputnik into orbit, it was a demonstration that if they could do that, they had the technology to drop a nuclear warhead any place they wanted to. That was the start of the whole US space program.
Didn't mean to go off on a rant :) Just wanted to relay some memories of the time. - spookyttws, on 06/21/2009, -2/+15I'm a huge space geek, and as much as I think we need to keep up our space program, I can see why it's not a priority. There is no real economic reason to continue the lunar programs. As long as there is a plan in place to resume space travel it may be a smarter idea to transfer much of the NASA's budget to Education, especially with emphasis on Science. That way we can fund the education of future Astronauts and return to the idea of the Lunar/Mars programs in 15 years when we'll be better economically, and with a plan 15 years in the making.
- Bullislander05, on 06/22/2009, -1/+12"Its replacement for Apollo, the space shuttle, has turned out to be a death-trap that has so far claimed the lives of 14 astronauts, the crews of shuttles Challenger and Columbia, and is to be retired next year."
Did this guy forget the three brave men who died in the Apollo program? I think 3 men out of 17 3-man missions is far higher a ratio than 14 out of 125 7-man missions. I'm sorry, but it's stupid to call the space shuttle a death trap. - inactive, on 06/22/2009, -1/+11The only thing more mind boggling than that link is your scientific illiteracy, paranoia and gullibility.
Enjoy your delusion. - zoffdino, on 06/22/2009, -0/+9What the nation has forgotten was the dream that it instilled into millions of American kids at the time. Growing up in the 60s with the space race, Armstrong on the Moon, Apollo 13 returning after a catastrophic failure, early computers, Star Trek and Star Wars were great inspirations for kids who wanted to grow up being rocket scientists, computer whiz and technology inventors, not to mention the countless space-inspired technologies.
I wasn't old enough to live in Kennedy's time, but Kennedy didn't put a man on the Moon—he put a generation of kids to dream of rocket science and from there came the brightest minds of the nation. I've met many great scientists at MIT and Caltech who said they grew up watching Armstrong landing on the moon and Star Wars movies. Having grown up in the time of Michael Jackson, Madonna, Britney Spears and now Miley Cyprus, my generation just never had the same drive for curiosity as it was in the 60s.
Apollo costed $1 trillion in today's dollar. That's not much bigger than the $700B we spent to rescue banks and automakers, which essentially slap the hands of the superrichs and tell them not to screw up next time. Does education and inspirations for all kids in this nation worth a trillion dollars? I think so! - rizzo2008, on 06/21/2009, -1/+9If we don't learn to live on other worlds mankind will reach the same fate as the dinosaurs.
- jasonhoutx, on 06/22/2009, -0/+8It's sad to see the spark for space exploration dwindle. My entire life has been surrounded by space exploration and astronauts. My pop spent his entire career out at NASA training astronauts. I got to take a spin in the real shuttle flight simulator before they cracked down on security. My dad is so proud to have been a part of it all from the beginning Gemini program.
It seem like the excitement has been dulled by politics & jacked up gov. bureaucracy. - DannoSpeaks, on 06/22/2009, -0/+8This article is horribly short-sighted. No benefit from the Apollo missions? How about the countless inventions and patents stemming directly from the program, and the great leap in science and technology? The millions of people around the world dedicating their lives to science because of the inspiration from these missions. And also, the thing that really bothered me... it's NASA, not Nasa. Ugh, who was this writer?
- Spire3660, on 06/22/2009, -0/+7There is no SHORT term economic reason. There are plenty of long term reasons to continue the lunar programs, #1 being establishing a self sustaining base on another orbiting body is a fantastic insurance policy for the human race.
- inactive, on 06/21/2009, -0/+6er, China IS building launch vehicles and managed to launch their first astronaut in 2003. They also have plans for the moon.
I've always thought it funny that the ESA has never pursued manned flights though. - Bullislander05, on 06/22/2009, -0/+5As someone who was still too young to fully understand what happened when space shuttle Columbia disintegrated during re-entry, it's very interesting to get a perspective on what the public perception of space travel was back when Apollo was in full swing. Thank you. :)
- SEN5241, on 06/22/2009, -3/+8"The great tragedy of the effort was that the best of American technology and billions of American dollars were devoted to a project of minuscule benefit to anyone," says historian Gerard DeGroot, of St Andrew's University. "Armstrong's small step did nothing for mankind." Indeed, the quest now "seems as strange as stuffing fraternity brothers into phone booths, swallowing goldfish or listening to the 1910 Fruitgum Company," he states. These are harsh words, but you can see DeGroot's point.
The author needs to pull his head out of his arse and look around at all of the advancements to the Human condition that came out of the space program. The computer that he used to type out this inaccurate drivel did not invent itself. Indeed, the bulk of the technical and computer industry that we geeks enjoy got a big boost from the technology required for the moon landings.
Phone booths indeed. - WildBil, on 06/22/2009, -0/+5Saturn 5 ruled!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saturn_V_launche ... - s0krat3z, on 06/22/2009, -2/+6The same government program that put a man on the moon in less than 10 years? One could go on about the other innovations that came out of NASA, but your mind appears small so we won't overload it.
- inactive, on 06/22/2009, -1/+5Cue the moon landing conspiracy nut-bars in 3 ... 2 ...1...
- radiofan, on 06/22/2009, -0/+4I was just in Florida last week. Got up in the middle of the night to go see STS-127 launch, then stayed a few extra days only to get turned around at the gates due to another scrub. Planning to go back for the next attempt. Shuttle launch tickets still sell out in minutes. The riverside in Titusville and the beach in Cocoa Beach are lined with people watching launches. There is still interest. The people who lost interest are the media.
Watch a NASA news conference and you'll see more represnatation from internet sites and the local Florida media. Only CBS still sends a reporter regularly. - inactive, on 06/22/2009, -0/+4I'm in the mood to watch The Right Stuff now.
- kingcam, on 06/22/2009, -0/+4Sounds like Gerard DeGroot needs to pull his head out of his ass. Because NASA is responsible for the following things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
So ya, basically NASA invented most of the ***** that makes the world work today. - doctechnical, on 06/22/2009, -0/+3And the two are connected, a good deal of technological advancement has come from martial source. Consider what sword making did for the art of metallurgy, just to name one.
And a major architect in the US space program was Verner von Braun, who designed the V2 rocket that Hitler used to terrorize London. - Homerr, on 06/22/2009, -0/+3Images from all the Apollo missions:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html - DailyRich68, on 06/22/2009, -1/+4"Its replacement for Apollo, the space shuttle, has turned out to be a death-trap that has so far claimed the lives of 14 astronauts."
There have been 124 shuttle missions where no one was killed. It's hardly a death-trap. - tdmeth, on 06/22/2009, -0/+3I think a lot of us need to hear things like that now and then. Thanks.
- LocalDocal, on 06/22/2009, -1/+4"We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years, but haven't seen that type of vigor in the space program since then"
Is it any surprise? I had always wonder why we haven't put as much effort into space exploration as previously until I read this article and it mentioned the cost. Holy *****, the mission's cost is equivalent to $1Tn dollars in 2009 (7-8% of today's US GDP)? And from the way the article described the dedication of the companies/workers involved, the worth of the entire thing was really a lot more (possibly twice to three times as much).
As much as continuing space exploration would be tremendous, I doubt the government would be willing to spend over a trillion dollars for space exploration (NASA's budget is under $20Bn), especially since there is no longer a USSR around to keep the government on edge. - Yeyui, on 06/22/2009, -1/+4You are absolutely correct that is faster, cheaper, easier, and safer to conduct unmanned missions. They even last longer (consider the mars rovers).
However, there is one major problem with avoiding manned missions. Only manned missions prepare us for the serious manned missions required for the ultimate goal of colonization.
True, serious colonization is not going to happen anytime soon. But I, along with many prominent thinkers, argue that such colonization is good for humanity and/or necessary for the long term survival of the species.
Eventually we will want or perhaps need to send sizable numbers of humans to destinations beyond low-earth orbit. I would rather that we had some experience in this beyond the Apollo program. - inactive, on 06/22/2009, -0/+3The internet itself is a result of the space race.
"(I remember a poem that had lines something like "Rats bite my kid a night, but Whitey's on the moon")"
That sounds vaguely familiar. The same mentality persists, unfortunately. NASA hasn't done the best job conveying how much we've benefited from space exploration.
I don't think any of us born since then can fully appreciate the magnitude of the moon landing. It's sad how quickly we've taken space flight for granted. - TobiasParker, on 06/22/2009, -4/+7The only reason the government spent the money to get to the moon was to be the Russians. Unless Al Qaeda decides to launch a Martian expedition we will never even make the attempt.
- paross2, on 06/22/2009, -0/+3That's still not an economic reason.
Here is one:
Spending money will help industry, and thus employment. More people with jobs and confidence will spend more money to help the economy.
Here is another:
Lunar or Mars bases could be colonized, and mined for resources. These resources would strengthen the value of the currency of whichever government gets them first. If America lays claim to Mars and all that they find on it, then we get martian minerals... possibly precious metals or radioactive elements.
Something fun to think about:
If we colonize a whole planet, the US becomes not just a global superpower, but a galactic superpower as well.
Too bad with poor diet and no exercise, I won't be around to see it. (At the pace NASA is going, neither will you) - reddikilowatt, on 06/21/2009, -2/+5I also think the expectation level is so high because of science fiction. I watched Starship Troopers again last night (yea, I was just that bored). The space ships were larger than buildings, the spaceport was a ring around the moon, warp drive to the bug planet, etc. Taking a week to get to the moon in a vehicle the size of a Town and Country pales in comparison, and people don't see the point.
I also find it interesting that the US and Soviet Union were the only two countries that pursued manned space programs -sure, there are Chinese, Israeli and a few other countries that have astronauts, but they aren't building launch vehicles and putting platforms out there. Maybe it's time the rest of the world steps up and takes us to the next level. I could totally see South Korea developing their own manned space program, just to stick it to the North, for example. - maninblack87, on 06/22/2009, -0/+3You just made me depressed for the rest of the week....
- shdwfx, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2Yeah, about ESA... I think they just didn't (and still don't) have as big a budget as the US or the Soviet union back in the day. And since there's not too much glory in being the 3rd to put a guy into orbit, they probably actually focused on what gave them the most scientific bang for the buck.
- Oronar, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2They found TMA-1.
- DulcetTone, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2And the world cheered Russia. They simply stopped doing so when they lost their way in the manner some suggest the US now has. Apollo (and even the shuttle program) was pure sex compared to anything Russia was doing.
- thenet411, on 06/22/2009, -1/+3@demonic
Your desire to believe such complete BS and nonsense aside, your disrepect of the men and women who have risked (and in some cases given) their lives to further our knowledge of our world and space makes me want to slap the living ***** out of you. Have a nice day. - borez, on 06/22/2009, -1/+3I've just watched a "The sky at night" documentary called " Man on the Moon " on BBC4 that basically showed with archive footage, the countdown and coverage of the moon landings exactly as it would have been shown in 1969.
As most of us here are too young to remember the actual event I thoroughly recommended watching this as an insight into what was easily man's greatest achievement of those times, and arguably ever since. - inactive, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2Cool!
Yeah, it seems like NASA is just a stage in space in exploration that's seen it's day. Time to privatize the venture. - CrispixKingdom, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2200-300 years from present day? My my, we do have a pessimistic one here.
I'll tell you the same thing I tell Fundies when they get all excited: It is presumptuous for any man to clam he knows what will happen in the future, or what happened in the dim past.
The long and short of it is that you have no idea what the future holds, so why be all grouchy at the dreamers? - reddikilowatt, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2Good point. Thanks for the correction.
- j0en, on 06/22/2009, -3/+5Psssh, its not like we ever went to the moon, it was the NWO with the illumati that faked the moonlanding in order to distract the world from their nano-bot helicopter production, thats what happend to the money for the soo called moonlanding, its obvious./s
- RogerStrong, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2Privatize *some* space activities. For much of it, including virtually ALL exploration, there's no business case.
- doctechnical, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2@demonic: Here, let me Google that for you:
http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/ULCN
Coordinates to the LLR reflectors. - tortfeasor2009, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2Really, the Brits specialize in hatchet jobs on NASA. I first encountered the animosity while spending a semester in Britain back in college through various BBC programs. They look at the program's faults without rose-colored glasses - because they simply don't have the access to the science and scientists that Americans receive and grow up with. But they seem to have a special vitriol reserved for NASA that goes beyond any intellectual honesty. This article serves as a perfect example of that. My thinking is that it is one of their attempts to knock us down a peg rather than point to their own anemic attempts at a space program - or cutting edge science in general.
- bCon, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2100kg of He3 is worth approximately $US 140 million (see 'Return to the Moon,' by Apollo 17 Astronaut Jack Schmitt). Energy supply and stability is the short- and long-term economic reason for returning to the Moon. The fusion of He3-He3 is the easiest and safest fusion reaction to initiate and would be used in current research projects, were it not for the lack of He3 on Earth.
The advancement of science, increased understanding of our universe (and all of the attendant benefits to our everyday lives), potential to observe life in a different environment; these are all important and secondary benefits of returning to the Moon. I believe that Mr. McKie's research was biased, allowing him to conveniently ignore the practical motivations for returning to the Moon. NASA's very purpose is to push the limits of technology, to pave the way for commercial endeavours to follow. You like Google Earth? It and the MANY other commercial satellite operators would have never reached orbit were it not for the breakthroughs made in the Apollo program (not to mention the incredible technological advancements that made Apollo and our modern world possible). This writer does not appreciate the long and highly complex process that separates pure scientific research from the consumer products that so surround his world, he likely attributes them to 'magic.' It's sad that the dream of exploration is not enough for Mr. McKie and unfortunate that someone with so limited a perspective is given a platform at the Guardian. - bCon, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2Saturn = 100% success rate, even in testing; less safe than what?
- nypix, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2Buzz Aldrin will be in my area next week for a book signing. I can't wait to see him.
- RogerStrong, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2There's no sign of any race.
China's space program is where the American space program was at the start of the Gemini missions, 45 years ago. Their current goals appear to be the same as Gemini's - space walk, docking, long duration flight. They've achieved the first of those.
Except that Gemini launched every few weeks, while Shenzhou only launches every few YEARS. They're falling further behind.
There lunar plans are for an UNMANNED landing in the next decade, again, 45 years or more behind the U.S. and USSR. - RogerStrong, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2>> We put a man on the
>> moon in less than 10
>> years, but haven't seen that type
>> of vigor in the space program since then
There hasn't been that kind of demand - and that kind of funding - ever since.
The moon landings were made possible by a knee-jerk reaction to Sputnik, Gagarin and other Soviet firsts. Americans demanded that the U.S. catch up. That resulted in the big space budgets of the early 1960s.
Once Gemini program got going and the U.S. was obviously ahead, funding was slashed in the mid-1960s. Saturn V production was capped even before the first moon landing. Apollo coasted through the moon landings with what hardware was already in the pipeline.
By Apollo 13, when the baby boomers were voting, a moon launch couldn't even get TV coverage. There was simply no demand by the voters for Congress to approve large NASA projects.
>> NASA seems to have
>> become a bureaucracy
>> that is too slow to innovate
>> and/or change.
Congress controls what NASA does by controlling its budget line item by line item. When you look at the projects that NASA gets funding to do, their record is pretty good.
For years Congress would kill any project that looked like it had anything to do with sending people beyond low earth orbit. The Vision For Space Exploration after the Columbia accident changed that.
Without a demand from the voters, Congress had no reason to fund mega-projects. Especially when those megaprojects wouldn't have a political payoff for a decade or more. - bCon, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2And what else would you rather do with your years?
Sit around and watch humanity devolve, having no purpose to further existence? - Ghostalker, on 06/22/2009, -0/+2Sadly, I see patriotism going down along with the space program. Back then it was the whole "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"... now it's "I pay taxes, I want the government to do XY and Z, as long as it's not for those damn Mexicans, or those ***** queers, or the stupid atheists".
We've fallen pretty far since Apollo ended. - virtorio, on 06/22/2009, -0/+1Then I achieved what I set out to do.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 