Just some random thoughts here...

Despite the political reasons for going to moon, there were plenty of people who recognized that the adventure and scientific exploration were reasons enough to go. Then once we got there on Apollo 11, public interest declined. Was it because "we beat the Russians, so game over?" Or was it that we didn't have a new goal to excite us to go to new heights?

People here on the BABB might be riveted to reading the ALSJ, but certainly not everyone in the world is (a shame, isn't it?). So after Apollo 11, people weren't that interested in the various experiments done on the subsequent missions. It was always the same ol' LM landing with two guys running around on the surface for a while before coming home. In some respects, I don't blame them. Mankind had made the "one small step", but there was no next step ready to be taken.

I think their interest might have been retained had we already had other major planned missions in the works (and not just on the drawing board or in people's heads). Missions like a Moon base, or a manned mission to Mars, etc. If the public had looked at the Apollo missions as the beginning, with the next steps already planned and known to the public, rather than an end, I think we might have gone further.

Perhaps if JFK has said "putting a man on the moon and bringing him safely back to the earth, as a first step to even greater achievements in space exploration..." or something of that nature, things might have turned out differently. Perhaps, had he lived, he might have said something like that.

All the enthusiasts were probably already geared up for continuing, and in fact expected Apollo to just be the beginning. But unfortunately, we are/were in the minority, and so we didn't. As I've heard exploration advocates say many times, if we're going to have serious manned exploration, we have to have a plan and mean for it to be a serious, continuous program. If we're going to go into space, we've got to mean it, and we have to go into space for good.

Hopefully if/when we do some serious exploration again, I truly hope we heed that advice.

__________________
I am the terror that flaps in the night...
Arcadia Prime - Battle Reports and more from the 41st millenium
Evidence of my nerdiness: My YouTube Video: Far Away

I think that even if a Mars mission had been in the works that interest in Apollo would have flagged. The public wants something new and different every time - same old, same old, even if it's landing on the Moon, doesn't cut it.

It might not have helped either that the Moon missions were very short duration: a lot happens all at once, and then it's over. I could see interest being greater in a mission that sets up a base on the Moon (or Mars), in which people tune in each day to see what has happened, just as people visited the Mars Pathfinder website every day to see what new photos had been received.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I have lived through the whole space program and watched every single launch and recovery through the first dozen shuttle missions. Over the years I've read many books and articles on the space program. Analysis' of why certain decisions were made etc. For this reason, I know you have some good and valuable points.

It is true that the country made some poor decisions about continuing the outward quest. One thing that continues to be missed by the pollititions is that the pursuit of space exploration imporves technology on all fronts. All of the wizzzbang gadgets we take for granted today are fallout from NASA.

You hear people (chronically out of touch) complain that the money needs to be spent on more important things such as housing for the poor, medicine for children. etc. ad infinitum. They fail to realize that as the push into space goes up, it drags the rest of humanity up with it. Periferal industries, support industries, correlary industries all employ more people, medicine gets better, newer/better computers are built, communications becomes cheaper and faster. I believe the list is infinite.

Heck, when I first entered the business world, a car phone cost $3000 to buy and put in, it took up half your trunk space and cost $1,200 a month in usage charges. Now you can get a phone that's just a touch bigger than a credit card and for about $150 per month you can call anywhere for as long as your battery holds up. My battery is good for about two days worth of average phone traffic.

When Apollo 11 went up, it didn't matter who you were or how much money you had, you couldn't get a Computer Aided Tomograph (CAT) scan or Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI). Because of the space program fallout, I have people sending me junk mail advertising both procedures for $200! The REALLY AMAZING thing, they don't even care if there's something wrong with you!!!! Just make an appointment and get it done!!!

[jumps on political soapbox]This type of thing can't be done in Canada. Due to socialized medicine, they only have six of each machine in the whole country. :-? This is Hillary's plan for your village. :roll: [/jumps on political soapbox]
[dons flameproof coveralls]
IMHO let's start the race for Prox Cent. and let the chips fall where they may.

__________________
It's just one of those damn things of which there are many few. -- Dan Blocker

I totally agree with you. One of the reasons (or the reason) that NASA is in its current dark age is because it lacks a focus. I couldn't say it much better than it's already been said here, but I'll just add one thing. A few months ago, shortly after the Columbia tragedy, someone wrote a letter to the editor in my local newspaper called "Time to end space program," and complained about how NASA had "killed 17 people" and that it was time to end the space program on that basis. Here is the letter which I wrote in response, and which was published about two weeks later (it may be a little different because they edited it slightly and this is the original Word document on my computer):

NASA Products Used Every Day


This is a response to the Friday letter to the editor entitled, “Time to End Space Program”. The author of this letter asks how NASA has benefited us over the last 45 years. I can think of lots of ways. In fact, NASA has been one of the most profitable and beneficial government programs since it was set up in 1958.

Besides landing on the Moon, NASA has given many things to our everyday lives. Smoke detectors have saved thousands of lives, and they were developed by NASA in the 1970s for a space station. In addition, joystick controllers, scratch-resistant glasses lenses, bar codes, invisible braces, firefighter suits, cordless tools (like Minivacs) memory foam (used in airline seats, wheelchair padding, artificial limb socket lining, and more), compact water filters, quartz clocks and watches, battery powered heated gloves and socks, ski blankets, riblets to make boats go faster, and foldable exercise machines all come from the space program. Even the inside of the Statue of Liberty is coated with a space material called IC 531. In fact, it’s pretty hard to live a day now without using something developed for space.

Ultimately, NASA has given us countless benefits since its inception in 1958. Yes, people have been killed in this program, and they are truly heroes who gave their lives to their country. But people are also killed each day in planes, cars, and crossing the street. NASA can and will continue to send people into space. We will continue to take small steps off of our small planet. And someday, we will be ready to reach for the stars.

I think that the essay that I posted on this thread was better, but this one was published in the newspaper so it must be OK. :wink:

What NASA should do now

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

I for one think our country as seriously mangled our space program, namely due to politics.

At first the space program was a great politcal standpoint. Then as public interest waned, so did political support. Instead of going further to try to recapture the public interest, they gave up.

Decades later, we've just now starting to make advancements again. I'm not going to claim we could have had a colony or outpost on Mars by now, but at the very least we would have a permenant presence on Luna by now and I'd say we'd have at least walked on Mars.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Not all of them. Claims about technology transfer from the Manned Space Program have, over the years, largely been exaggerated. (For example, the notion that Velcro, Tang and Teflon all came from the Space Program is a myth, as Bob Park pointed out in 1993.)

But not the items I mentioned, many of which are very important.

Thanks for the replies, guys.

If I'm not mistaken, when JFK orginally queried NASA/his science advisors about a goal we could achieve to beat the Russians, he wanted to set the deadline for 1967, rather than the end of the decade. The reason is obvious--if JFK won a second term, he'd still be in office for the first Moon landing. That would be some political triumph. He ended up settling for the end of the decade as 1967 would have been pushing it a little too much. Even though JFK might have started out wanting the project from start to finish within his tenure in office, he at least had the foresight the realize that ultimately the scope of the missions was beyond one president's term, and yet was still worth doing.

The cynical minded might say it was selfishness rather than foresight: that since JFK started it, he realized the Moon landings would forever be associated with him regardless of who was president during the actual landings--which ended up being the case.

Still, what we need to hope for is a president who realizes the need for programs that go on and prosper long after said president has left office.

ToSeek said:
I agree that interest in Apollo would have flagged regardless. The point is that the public would then be able to switch their attention to the Mars mission. As soon as the Mars mission comes to fruition and interest sags, they can switch their attention to the next program, and so on. The point is, the public's interest remains focused on space exploration, if not just a single program.

__________________
I am the terror that flaps in the night...
Arcadia Prime - Battle Reports and more from the 41st millenium
Evidence of my nerdiness: My YouTube Video: Far Away

But then you're talking about supporting two major programs at the same time, when even one was - unfortunately - controversial.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

There's that, yes...

But then, we were fighting the Vietnam War through much of the Apollo Program... although that was even more controversial than Apollo.

As always, it seems to boil down to, "Yes, we can do it. We just need the will."

__________________
I am the terror that flaps in the night...
Arcadia Prime - Battle Reports and more from the 41st millenium
Evidence of my nerdiness: My YouTube Video: Far Away

Which might be one of the reasons the space program is in the mess it is in; to the Republicans, Apollo was a Democratic program (started by JFK), to the Democrats it was a Republican program (consummated under RMN). So nobody likes it.

If I might play devil's advocate here for moment -- darkwing, my apologies.

While to those of us who read and post here see spaceflight as the greatest adventure of all time, and it captures our imaginations, that isn't true for everybody.

For instance, I might be a cyberneticist, and think that is the greatest thing ever as I do research into making VR environments. Or a biologist studying life at the bottom of the ocean. Whatever.

All of these things compete for time and attention, and funding.

NASA's failures -- there are many -- are not wholly the problem. As a society we make decisions about what is important to us. Those things that we see as important are the ones that get funding and support. Economics is a part of this, but not the only one (after all, we still pour money into building bungalow houses in hurricane zones. How rational is that? But people want to live by the water on a beach).

A lot of people would have to decide that spaceflight is important, and a lot of governments -- not just ours, or the Chinese, or the Russians -- have to decide it is important. Spinoff technologies are great, but alone they do not work as a reason -- after all, many can or might be developed through other, less expensive avenues -- computers for example, were developed sans a space program. So were CRTs (which date from the 30s). Plastics came by accident.

Remember, space is not the only way. It is one of a number of them. Science is not a set of discrete pieces that operate independently of each other.

Just my two cents worth.

No need to apologize.

I agree completely with this. But I don't think you can deny that for a short while in July 1969 the world was riveted by the idea of Man's first steps on another world, regardless of their profession or interests.

This is all true--many space enthusiasts have touted the greatness of all the spinoffs, while others have pointed out that not all the attributed spinoffs were in fact spinoffs, while other "spinoffs" might have occurred anyway. But I don't think that technological development is the main reason for space exploration.

Agreed--with respect to science at least. But science isn't the only reason to explore space.

Space exploration may not be the best way to advance science. It may not be the cheapest way to advance technology. It may not also be the best way to be "adventurous"--why not go sky diving? It may not be the best way to do any of these things, but it can contribute to them all simultaneously.

My original point still stands: once Apollo achieved its most visible objective, the moon landing, it was almost inevitable that there be a let down afterwards. Once you get to the top of a mountain, you realize there's nowhere to go but down. What we needed was someone waiting to point out that there are even bigger mountains that are worthy of climbing--if the public understood that and saw merit in it, we might have kept their interest longer.

__________________
I am the terror that flaps in the night...
Arcadia Prime - Battle Reports and more from the 41st millenium
Evidence of my nerdiness: My YouTube Video: Far Away

i am going to gamble and say much of the issue is stagnation. we got bored with just going to Earth orbit, and need something else. people in general are infamous for short attention spans. as soon as something becomes regular, we go on to look for something else. there are a myriad of reasons for the program being where it is today. we can't go back in time and fix them. we can change the future however. in order to be funded, the public has to be interested. no interest=no one caring=no one giving money. the government will send money where the interest is--whether that be VR, ocean research, earthquake research, or the space program. i think by making a big PR push with the Mars "fleet" (all, even the international parts) and the New Horizons mission to Pluto we may be able to start a new generation on the read to space. those over 40 (no offense) will probably be grandparents before any huge changes are noticeable. BUT--if it is pushed in schools in science classes, the next generation will catch on and will be old enough to join the workforce in time to replace the present cast. a new, energized and visionary generation may be the answer. more money and plans alone will not do the job.

one more thing and i'll be done. when i was in sixth grade, my father took me to the UofM for a lecture series on the Galileo project. by ths time it had already been to Jupiter and was well into its research. (the presenters were the actual mission personell, pretty cool!). same with Pathfinder for Mars. i never heard about these things in school, and they only had passing mention on the news. there was no real internet then to spread the word. i would go back to class and ask my teacher about the programs, they had no idea they even existed! many of the other students didn't either.

the future lies with the future. kids in school now, and those just entering the workforce. if the program is going to continue it must be sold to them, if they bite, the rest will take notice. but if old folk are the only ones who care, the program will go with them, and it will be years before the momentum can be restarted.

ok ok...so i'm a young'n too. :P i'm in a minority with my interest in space though, that's what i'm saying. i may be a teacher someday... watch me tell my kids what's up! (pun intended).

__________________
None to speak of

You're talking about the Mets winning the World Series, right? That was pretty unearthly. (Imagine! The Mets!)

Sorry, what were you saying? :P

You reminded me of a sketch on Dead Ringers, where Culshaw impersonates the continuity announcer on C4. He says, "At nine thirty, a documentary investigating why children don't read book anymore followed at ten by Big Brother."

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Which is why we need a manned Mars program.



Let me share with you an essay I wrote a few months ago:


Since the beginning of history there have always been two types of nations. There are those who live day to day, taking what they can from their neighbors or their surroundings; and those who seek to expand their world or horizons and leave things better than when they found them. One of the things that has made America a world leader is our willingness to explore, take risks, and find ways to improve the world around us. The question today is not whether we can continue to explore space while we face other problems, the question is: can we afford not to? The space program has already unalterably changed our lives and our understanding of our planet.

What has come out of the manned space program? Here are just a few examples: satellite phones and television, smoke detectors, microwaves, joystick controllers, ski blankets, Velcro, cordless tools, bar codes, ear thermometers, and firefighter suits have all come directly from the manned space program. There have also been the intangible but priceless benefits of advancing scientific knowledge about previously unknown, alien worlds.

In addition, important humanitarian advances have been made by the manned spaceflight program. Fifteen years ago, who would have thought that we would be cooperating with Russia and fourteen other countries to build a manned orbiting outpost hundreds of miles up? Thanks to the space program, we can now predict floods, famine, and other natural disasters in poor countries such as Bangladesh or Mozambique, saving many lives in the process. Due to technology developed from spaceflight, including robotics, it is now possible for doctors to perform surgery on patients halfway across the world who might be too poor or sick to travel to another country for needed surgery. NASA is currently planning experiments to be done on the International Space Station may lead the way to a vaccine for AIDS.

Mankind needs a challenge to prosper. Starting in the late 1400s, we began to explore the great Western Sea. America was discovered, and soon ever better ships were being built to get to America faster and faster. Technology and culture blossomed as we embraced the challenge of settling the New World. When America was born, the new challenge was to expand westward. The railroads were eventually built to facilitate transport, and the telegraph emerged for faster communication. Then, around the turn of the century, we started to electrify our cities. Cars became common, and two bicycle salesman named Wright started playing with a flying contraption. By 1960, Americans enjoyed an ever improving standard of living as technology geared up for the moon race. But when the moon landings ended in the early 1970s, progress slowed down. The only real change from 1975 to now has been the widespread use of computers. Other than that, we have reached a plateau. The world has been colonized and is growing ever more crowded. The only place to expand is outward. Our next challenge is the infinite panoply of worlds in outer space.

We now face a decision. To paraphrase American engineer Robert Zubrin, there are two paths for mankind to follow. One looks easy and straight, and may even slope downward a little bit. This is the path without space travel- we forego a challenge for an easier but infinitely less rewarding route. There is another way, though. It is long and strenuous, and unquestionably leads uphill. But there is no limit to this path. Its top is reached only at the stars. And on that note, I’ll let someone else end for me. There is a wall on the Library of Congress inscribed with the following words by the poet Edward Young: “Too low they build, who build beneath the stars.”

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745