Remembering Apollo 11 and the Legacy of Apollo

The true legacy of Apollo was that it helped us win the Cold War. It had nothing to do with space per se; it just happened to take place in space. It took me a long time to realize this, but it explains a) why the national political leadership was so gung-ho to race the Soviets to the Moon (it was a war); and b) why they completely lost interest in the Moon after the goal was achieved (after you win a battle, you don't keep fighting it.)

I wrote about this a decade ago, during the 30th anniversary celebration. Keeping the Apollo flame alive as a model for space exploration has done more harm than anything else we've done for the past 40 years. It was a great accomplishment and deserves to be remembered, but it is not a model for a national program of space exploration.

Frank's note: So my friend, if you are right...what IS the right model? And how do you sustain public interest in it over the long haul?

One small step for man and giant leap for mankind.

The Giant Leap just did not happen as planned, Please make a chart or three and what giant leaps happened for mankind.
Best I can remember I was camping and with family watching a B&W 12" GE TV for the landing and first step brought along for just this purpose. The Camp Ground was a buzz with excitement, you could hear a pin drop before the first step. Later I went swimming and the War in Vietnam was on the news most of the time. I really did not watch TV unless I had to for some reason.

Also Race Riots were popular it appears. Maybe this was the Giant leap with later flight SSP with Woman and People of all Colors from the planet Earth, The Rioting generally does not happen in the USA much anymore. It is not like some people do not want this to happen however.

I often wonder what the public motivation really was during the space race. I definitely don't think NASA or any government entity knows the truth exactly.

We know that behind closed doors the federal government wanted to beat the russians at everything. We know that kennedy spoke about exploring space for the sake of it. We know his speeches were rousing and motivated people. We even know that the united states had just become a superpower nation, going very quickly from living in poor conditions to winning a war and becoming wealthy.

So I wonder what regular people really thought. How many people valued a hard day of work and the achievement of excellence, all while remembering what it was to be poor. How many people just wanted to beat the russians at various tasks for the sake of national pride. How many people wanted to explore for the sake of exploring. How many people thought they would profit from it, say by high technology trickling into family rocket ships. And how many people were tricked into supporting the space program because they were afraid of war or aliens. How much was fear the motivator. I wonder about these and other things.

Two notes:

Pre-1960s people were over-estimating the power of new technology. Video and print show people expecting us to have nuclear or flying cars, or anti-gravity space ships zipping around mars, or everyone eating microwave dinners. In my mind it is possible that 1) the excitement, 2) the novelty, and 3) the over-estimation of capabilities of early-modern technology ALL compounded to produce an incorrectly high perception of value from the space program. Who wouldn't support getting all that great stuff? "If going to space solves all our problems, why not go?" Today we know much more about technology, and our expectations are more reasonable. We probably know that anything we do in space in our lifetimes probably won't revolutionize our lives. Big difference from the 1960s, which alone could explain the lack of modern public support.

Secondly, while buck rogers and the like existed on paper 100 years ago, science fiction on tv and film only started around the time of the USA space programs. See when the top movies suddenly started being science fiction: http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice2.html#fifties The question is: is there a relationship one way or another, or not. Maybe it just took that long for film technology to get good enough to produce good looking scifi movies that people wanted to pay for. If the half of the country that fully supported NASA in the 1960s was the same demographic that today watches scifi on tv and film and games, I have to wonder. Is today's generation of potential space-supporters not supporting space because they're having too much fun with fiction? In the 1960s NASA could compete with scifi fiction. Today fiction has a lot more experience draining wallets and keeping attention than NASA TV does. Maybe today's space exploration supporters are distracted by a different kind of space exploration. Maybe modern space support is another product of private industry beating government at almost everything they simultaneously attempt.

Well, most likely there are many reasons for the current state of public NASA support. Just like there are probably many reasons why organizations inside NASA act differently now than in the past. Such is the way with natural systems. They are too complex to easily express with the written word.

The reality check is that the only reason we go to space is because we have money and power. No nation has had money and power forever. So make sure you consider in your daily life the bigger problem of keeping the nation rich, not just nasa.

I was in junior high at the time, and was grateful that my father let me stay up late enough to watch the live broadcast. The images were unrecognizable at first. But soon we were able to make out the men in spacesuits. My father was even more excited than I was.

Will Buzz resonate with the American public? He could. He might ask, why could America accomplish something then that is so difficult to do today? And he could offer his own answer to that question. Everyone who posts to NASA Watch has an opinion. But Buzz has the opportunity to reach a major portion of the population with his thoughts, and has the credentials to command respect.

Frank's note: Darrell-I had just finished junior high and was about to start my senior year. The build-up towards achieving Kennedy's goal had consumed me since the Mercury days..I had even talked the local (Slidell, La) Optimist Club and Chamber of Commerce in letting me give talks about the Apollo program-and I was 17 years old!. I skipped school to watch a Saturn V S-II stage test firing...the whole thing was a great cool fixation then-and now. This space stuff called forth the best in us-that's why we have to keep at it!

There are more than the commemorations occurring- defining commemorations as a formal organized event at some well known venue involving well-known personalities. What is also occurring are lesser-known reunions of the various Apollo-era personnel and organizations- some of which no longer exist today. while many of these people are no longer with us, there are many that are and some still working. Unfortunately, during Goldin and subsequent NASA Administrator tenure- there was an objective to encourage retirement of these people. I happen to be one of that group but retired only recently.

First thought: sod the American public - Apollo 11 was truly 'the shot that was heard around the world'.

Second thought: what could the world do if it started working together today.

Third thought: If I have reached so far it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants (paraphrased from Isaac Newton)

Add 'em up!

Where does one start?

It may be worth remembering that prior to Apollo there were three theories for how the Moon was formed: Co-formation, Capture, & Earth Fission. Apollo showed that none of them worked, and a fourth carried the day - the impactor origin. Understanding the origin of Earth and its moon is a bit of a big deal...

Being born in 1957, I grew up with the race to the moon. Countless kids of my generation grew up to be scientists and engineers, motivated by the high visibility of this technical/scientific enterprise and the high value placed on it. Kennedy knew this would happen and that the nation would, and now, has reaped enormous goodies from investing here. And it inspired even more, who did not follow this path (witness Tom Hanks!).

But it is also hard to accept where we are as compared to where we thought we would go. Right before the actual Apollo missions started in 1968, "2001" came out. Many of us thought that this was a logical extrapolation and that if we had Apollo in our childhood - our adulthood would see the world of "2001." The immediate and direct legacy of Apollo for later steps human spaceflight thus foundered.

Its legacy now, perhaps in the best spirit of all great explorations, is how it speaks to the private imaginations, dreams, inspirations, of those of us who watched and learned what is possible...

Frank's note: Tod, I think you are right on-but how to inspire the next generation to go father in space? Another moon race? NEOs? Mars?

I wasn't around in 1969, so I don't have much to share there.

I do think that many non space geeks will take the time to remember that amazing event, but it will be quickly forgotten.

Space flight is not part of the current culture's psyche for a number of reasons. We're not really planning anything interesting from the general public's perspective, and haven't really accomplished much either.

I'm in no way diminishing what has been done over the last 40 years, but from the average non space geeks perspective we haven't done much at all. The average person doesn't appreciate how difficult it was to fix the hubble a few weeks ago. They also don't appreciate how hard it was to build that bridge they just used, or how hard it is to have the safety record the airlines manage these days.

I believe the public would be interested in space again if we start making it interesting again. This includes first a real reason to explore and concrete plans to actually do it. The current message is "NASA is doing some things that will be over budget, late, and far short of inspiring". I know it hurts to hear that, but deep down inside, we all know it's true.

We need real goals, interesting programming worthy of replacing a few prime time TV shows, and some young people promoting a spirit of adventure.

We need to start doing things that 10 year old boys daydream about like they used to.

Frank's note: So what will get 'em daydreaming again? Mars settlement?

I have been totally hooked on NASA since Ed white performed the first American Spacewalk on from Gemini 4. In my opinion the Apollo Program is the greatest American achievement of the 20th century. The real tragedy is that the last surviving 9 moonwalkers may not live to see man land on the moon if there are budget fights in Congress. I was almost 12 years old when the Eagle touched down on the Sea of Tranquility. It was almost 2am when the hatch finally opened. It was many years later when I found out that the Eagle had a few seconds of fuel left before touch down because they were over an uncharted boulder field.

In my previous comment, I wrote that I have been hooked on NASA manned spaceflight since the first American spacewalk by Ed White. I was 12 when the Apollo 11 mission took place in July 1969. To this day, I am still learning about new information about Apollo behind the scenes. After Nixon became president, Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were cancelled. I can only wonder what America and NASA would be like in RFK was not killed on Los Angeles in 1968. I am pretty sure he would have won the Democratic nomination and then the general election against Richard Nixon. If the Apollo program were last longer than Apollo 17, I am sure i read somewhere recently that Charles Conrad would have lead one either Apollo 19 or 20 to the surface which would have made hime the only human to set foot on the Moon.

> Second thought: what could the world do if it started working together today.

Good point, maybe the national or selfish perspective is part of the problem when there is no war to fight. If you ask "how does this help me?" you might not have a space program at all. Maybe Obama and the rest of us need to ask "how do we help everyone?" Paving the way through space with other nations surely isnt a selfish goal...

Not to mention the finances of it all. Financing major space innovation might simply be too big for one nation. Why do the united states have to shoulder the cost of design and deployment of the rockets and probes and landers and rovers and habitats and mining facilities and space elevators and system ferries all on their own? The answer used to be "because nobody else could help", they were all too poor or dumb. But what if you ask for help today?

> Frank's note: So what will get 'em daydreaming again? Mars settlement?

Well look at what people do in their spare time. Some of the most popular tv shows are non-fiction. On broadcast tv and cable both, some of the most popular tv shows are real people doing real things. The shows are entertaining because a new formula exists for editing reality into a good tv show. Pioneered by the likes of Survivor.

So where are the space reality tv shows? TLC and Discovery Channel used to be about learning things, but now they follow surgeries and mothers around for ratings dollars. Where is the show where the follow the trials and tribulations of the single mother astronaut preparing for her first space mission? Where is the PBS "Carrier" of the STS for that matter.

And even if NASA did let a company make a tv show out of some program or people, one time isn't enough to find success. The free market makes good things because they are allowed to fail so often that eventually something succeeds, and sometimes succeeds magnificently. To make a good tv show they audition hundreds of people and pick just a few. Most fail. So to make a good TV show that might rival American Idol, NASA would have to let in hundreds of tv producers to have their way with the organization, whoring it out like the public whores itself out to be on TV.

In the world of software there is the concept of free and open source software. A hundred million people will download it but only one will make it into something great. What is stopping NASA from categorizing and databaseifying all of its uncountable hours of HD video, and offering it to the free market and saying "make whatever you want from this, and profit however you want from this". At worst it makes a good editing and production contest. At best a star is born?

what IS the right model? And how do you sustain public interest in it over the long haul?

Public interest and engagement is something NASA has pursued constantly during its existence, but somehow, never seems to achieve, at least by its own measures. They think that if they can excite the public, they will be showered with all the money they can spend -- the space program as a national panem et circenses.

The simple fact is that most people don't care all that much about space. They are not "buffs." They aren't anti-space -- they just don't orient their lives around it. And despite whatever public engagement is undertaken, they never will.

But this is not a bad thing. History shows us that space spending at around 0.5 to 1% of the federal budget is "sustainable," in the sense that it already has sustained itself for the last 30 years. Thus, we need to craft a program and an architecture that fits under such a budget envelope.

That's why I think developing and using space resources is the key to creating real and lasting spacefaring capability. It will decouple spaceflight from the requirement for its annual fix of federal largess. Expanding capabilities will open the Solar System to exploration, utilization and ultimately, settlement, a much wider set of activities than what NASA alone could undertake.

NASA's role is to develop the technologies and techniques we need to do this. That's why the Vision made such a point about using the resources of the Moon -- it's close, we know what's there, and it's the perfect place to learn the skills we need to create real, long-term spacefaring capability.

Not exciting enough? So what? Only buffs watch railroads being built or aircraft rolling off an assembly line, but that doesn't mean that either rail or air transport is irrelevant. We just need to get spaceflight to that level of "ordinariness."

Frank's comment: But my friend we are many, many years from such "ordinariness" when it comes to space flight. I know most people don't care-but then again they don't know beans about how important this is to their lives and their children's futures. If we can educate them, then they Will care! We can't give up that hope! We've got to find a way to ignite that spark...

It won't resonate very much. Moon hoaxers may get more coverage, in fact. After all they're a good fit for the entertainment model of news in the USA.

Frank, you asked in your comment to Paul Spudis, how do you sustain public interest in the long haul and the answer is you can't and you don't. People are fickle especially in the instant-gratification world we live in. Political will is what sustains all big projects and public interest is a hindrance rather than a help because now you have two disparate sets of customers.

Frank;s reply: Let's hope for a more positive outlook, although you are certainly correct about our instant-gratification culture. Maybe it will take a space-themed reality show? Hollywood, do we have a lift-off?

What IS the right model? And how do you sustain public interest in it over the long haul?

The goal for the civil space program must be to open up the solar system for development and settlement. In short, the U.S. government shall expand the economic sphere of the United States beyond Earth orbit so that the America people can harness extra-terrestrial scientific and natural resources.

In contrast with today's approach, the civil space program shall not just approach space as a domain only for a handful of civil servants to briefly travel to. For how long can this vicarious non-participatory interest be sustained? I'd argue that the interest was lost long ago.

Rather, the space program shall blaze a trail with an open architecture that leverages and nurtures the key strengths of the commercial and educational space sectors so that some day soon average Americans (Especially the young student suggested by NASA Watch!) can travel to, work in and benefit from affordable access to space.

Frank's comment: Well said, John!

The website collectspace.com has a thread containing remembrances of Apollo 11 by those around then.

See: http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000960.html

Sunday, July 20, 1969.
I was four days shy of my 14th birthday.
My parents had taken me to Camp Crestview, about 40 miles or so north of Pittsburgh for my week.
I had attempted to fake being sick so I wouldn't miss the moon landing, but failed.
Time itself seemed to stop as everyone gathered around the radio, and a huge cheer went up as we heard "Tranquility Base here...the Eagle has landed!"

A few hours later, we gathered in a farmhouse to watch a snowy picture on a black-and-white TV. I couldn't tell if the snow was coming from the distance to the Moon...or the distance from Pittsburgh. The tinfoil on the rabbit ears was doing all it could to pull in those sparse microvolts.

We watched in stunned silence as Neil spoke those first words...and at the bottom of the TV screen, there was a "crawl" that said "Live From The Moon."

We went outside, and looked up...there were two of us walking around on that crescent moon. We talked about how we were going to live and work in space, and by the time we were as old as our parents were, we could take vacations on the Moon.

I also remember staying up late to watch man's final footsteps on the Moon, in the late fall of my senior year of high school, and wondering if we'd ever pass that way again in my lifetime.

After my mother passed in 2005, I found the videotape that she'd had our home movies transferred to. The video of the trip to KSC in July 1971 showed this skinny kid leaning against a rocket engine in the Rocket Garden.
I wept as I compared it to the photo of me and my youngest son as we stood beneath Endeavour. My father passed away too early, but my mother was able to share in what I'd done a few months before she passed.

This year, I'll be looking hard at 54, getting ready for my vacation at Myrtle Beach. The Moon is still a bit out of reach, as is any experience of microgravity.

Any "legacy" will be with my youngest son, who has walked through the doors to the administrator's office on the ninth floor. I told him "Maybe they're hoping that you'll walk through these doors again in a few years."

Maybe they're hoping that a lot of our children walk through those doors in the coming years...

Frank's comment: But my friend we are many, many years from such "ordinariness" when it comes to space flight. I know most people don't care-but then again they don't know beans about how important this is to their lives and their children's futures. If we can educate them, then they Will care! We can't give up that hope! We've got to find a way to ignite that spark...

Frank

Read my book. Seriously, we need the resources of the solar system to provide a positive future for our descendants. The Moon is where we start. Apollo was an amazing first step that did far more for this than I think anyone realizes.

I have been reading the Apollo preliminary science reports and I am astonished at how much we simply did not know about the Moon before Apollo. The samples that the crew brought back provide the ground truth data for every single remote sensing mission that has flown since. The samples tell us how much Aluminum, oxygen, iron, titanium, and meteoric materials that there are on the Moon.

Very little if any of the work in developing ideas for ISRU would have made any significant progress without the Apollo ground samples. The lunar orbiters and the Apollo orbital cameras mapped the moon in extensive detail that has yet to be surpassed in the visible bands. The surface experiments for heat flow, seismic disturbances, and others provided a baseline that all furture missions will use as a starting point.

This is the legacy of Apollo in my opinion.

Frank's note: Dennis, I have read and enjoyed your book-and I do basically agree with your assessments..

I'm with Spudis; we don't need everyone excited about space for it to be funded and to be relevant. Nobody is super excited about trains or planes or bridges or whatever.

I'm not really sure what more we could ask for in terms of "excitement" from the "public". There is a lot more attention on space matters than many other things the government does (for lots more money).

And, America's interest in space is enough to warrant (through our elected officials) at 15 to 20 billion dollar budget a year.

I don't disagree that NASA is trying to do more than it can afford right now, but I do disagree that this is a bad budget. Its humongous. Its more than anyone else gets.

It seems that there's just too many cool things to do in space. We wanna look at Ceres, do the Kepler exoplanet survey, study the history of the universe with Hubble, go to Mars, etc. etc. etc.

This excites enough people to warrant the budget it gets.

I don't know what else we really expect from people. Space parties every sunday?

Frank's note: I expect them to believe in that which helps to improve their lives, I expect them to once in a very great while sit up and take a second from watching reality TV and reading People magazine to learn something that enriches and inspires; just like my parents did for me a half century ago with the Golden Books on space, model kits of the Mercury capsule, and what was once called "educational" television once or twice a month...

There is no 'true legacy' of Apollo 11. The meaning we give to the impact of Apollo 11 depends on what lens you are looking through as you both remember it then evaluate that memory. A better question would be: "What legacy do you wish to create from Apollo 11 that will serve the future you aspire to?"

The way that people have traditionally commemorated events is by telling stories in a ceremony. It worked for the Jews for thousands of years...

Frank's note: Then let's all listen to Buzz when he rants and raves, remembering that he is one of the few last living links to a unique time in history-and he has earned our respect and consideration, no matter how much we may disagree with him...and there will be PLENTY of controversy over his views, I assure you...

I was sitting in my living room, watching the landing on T.V. I was about to celebrate my 27th birthday, and was going back to school for another degree, following release from active duty with the Air Force. I was thinking it was too bad my not-quite-year old daughter wasn't old enough to understand what was going on.

I think the legacy of Apollo 11, of the whole Apollo program was that Americans, indeed humankind can do a lot of things that seem impossible, if we get off our duffs and have at it. It was also about firing the imagination of people all over Earth, if only for a little while.

Yes, we were in the middle of the Cold War, and a hotter one in Southeast Asia. But Apollo seemed to transcend that, world-wide.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that we have become so tangled up with current problems here on Earth that the general public has no real feeling about the space program, unless something spectacular occurs...good or bad. There are no programs on T.V. like we had when I was growing up, with people like von Braun, Lay, Ehrike, etc. Even the sci-fi programs have pretty well evaporated. (Maybe the newest Star Trek film will spark some interest among youngsters...don't know, haven't had a chance to see it yet.)

One "problem" "created" by the Shuttle program is...boredom. Except for the disasters of Challenger and Columbia, Shuttles have taken off and landed on a pretty regular, routine basis. (Yeah, I know, we who follow the Shuttle program know it is NOT like that at all, but that is the public perception.) Why? How many people pay attention to the last or the next commercial flight taking off from their nearest major airport...unless there is a spectacular crash! Not many. BECAUSE THIS IS OPS, and ops are by their routine, BORRRRING!

But isn't that what Shuttle was supposed to be...and really isn't? The title say it..."Shuttle" back and forth! Even the highly successful mission by the Atlantis astronauts to repair/refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope means about as much to the general public as watching your plumber change the innards of your toilet tank! WE know it was a major feat of skill, training and even improvisation. But the general public? All they know is what they get from CNN or FOX, for about 10 seconds mixed in with the latest "bad news".

What's the answer? I wish I knew. I've tried to help educate various grade school kids...when I can get time provided by their classroom teachers...amid their prepping the students for their "No Child Left Behind" canned tests!

What we need is something to spark the imaginations of people, show them what the benefits have already acrued from the space program, and what we may find if we go "Out There! Thataway!"

To paraphrase what James Gunn wrote in his sci-fi anthology, "Station In Space", "We can't export our [exploding populations] to the stars. But everyone doesn't have to go. They only have to believe that they could do what the explorers (astronauts, cosmonauts, taikonauts) can do, given the chance themselves. Maybe that is where outfits like VirginGalactic, et al, will help.

To heck with LEO! Ad LUNA! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

The legacy of Apollo 11, I believe, IS us. We space buffs, those who read here. Many of us can trace our intrest directly back to that event or at least trace the moment when a passing intrest turned into a passion as far as Apollo 11. I too was born in 1957 and grew up with the space program, and like many of that same generation I watched in sadness as a highly positive act to extend civilization was wrongly painted in a negative light and then cancelled as if the myth that it was a waste, was true. We lived through those years as "the gap" of the late 1970s took place. By 1980 the Soviets were launching 2 manned flights a week while we sat and listened to our media and "leaders" bark about how the shuttle was a waste and would never work.

What's past is past, however. Apollo 11 was the spark that ignited my path to a degree in science, a career in aviation and allowed me to escape the auto plants and the UAW. Today, post airline career, I own a company that makes model rockets- and I see an obligation to spark intrest. Last week I spoke to 75 fourth graders, then we went out into the school yard and flew the Space Shuttle. All it took was a few hours in my afternoon and a model rocket. The result was a gang of kids who, their teachers tell me, are still bouncing off the walls about spaceflight a week later. Prior to that event I did a launch for my daughter's pre-school. That's all ya' need to do folks- and if you inspire just one, that's enough.

I have two daughters, ages 2 and 5, both have been to KSC twice in the last 4 years, the last time was to watch STS-125 launch. I want my kids to grow up with a good handle on REAL science... and to know how to scream "GO BABY GO!" at a NASA launch. You cannot inspire the whole nation toward spaceflight- Apollo 11 is proof of that, but you can inspire as much as you can get in front of and that is worth doing. On July 16th I'll be in a schoolyard, launching one of my model Saturn Vs for anyone who wants to come and watch, and on the 20th too. That's how I'll remember the event, after all... I'm an Apollo spin-off.

Frank's note: Wes, you put us all to shame with your good works and eloquence. May people like you live long and prosper-and keep the faith in spaceflight!

Rocketry, space exploration and commercialization is about hard nosed engineering and large sustaining budgets. The glory spread on the astronauts should be shared with the designers, builders, testers and launch teams that make it happen. Read the official NASA history book entitled, "Stages to Saturn" by Roger Bilstein to get a better appreciation of what it takes to create and operate a real Moon rocket. Dr. von Braun commissioned me to go out and gather the key program and engineering documents even before Apollo 11 was launched, as they were already going into dumpsters( they now reside in the archives at the University of Alabama Huntsville). And since the end of Apollo, we have sent people out no further than the Hubble and ISS orbits. Spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds to keep going around in circles for almost thirty years is not very exciting and has been extremely wasteful of valuable skills, resources and time.

I am anxious to see what comes from the latest Review.
Hopefully, a more realstic architecture and space transportation system will be implemented that is worthy of a true spacefaring nation. Perhaps our detailed plans from the 50's and 60's should be revisited and updated. We could have been on Mars in the 80's by employing the space infrastructure that was deep sixed in the 70's.

Frank's note: The Von Braun legacy lives on-thanks to folks like you. I know many are ashamed of him in these politically correct times-but I'm not one of them. He was no saint-neither was Kennedy-but had the vision we needed when we needed it. Per aspera ad astra!

@ Frank Sorry to keep banging this tinker toy drum but: robots; Robots; ROBOTS!
Kids like robots. NASA likes Robots. NASA already has kids naming their 'bots, so take it to the next stage. Let's imagine a SUSTAINABLE (SEP + L1 staging + Hypergol Lander?) cis lunar supply train delivering a 'bot to a Robotic Village at the rate of, say: the Ranger program i.e. one every three to four months!
Sintering 'bots, digging 'bots, drilling 'bots, ISRU 'bots, dozer 'bots, prospector 'bots, mining 'bots... all with cute names and 'GPP'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Cybernetics_Corporation ... so many d&mn 'bots that we can allow the kids to play. Imagine kids designing their own 'bots and testing them on a mockup lunar park traveling around the country. The winning 'bot(s) go to the Moon! Gen Z-Prize competitions for new 'bot functions. Awards for finding new things to do with old 'bots. Thus the next generation has a (tele-operated) 'handle' on the territory and a real stake in going there for real. And soon!
Two entire generations have been spoiled by the ersatz space experiences of Hollywood. Hence the passive response to the Real Space program. How can MC compete with SGC or the UFP. Utilising a virtual presence via tele-ops will wean the 'Next Gen' away from Science Fantasy into Science Fact.
The Fact is Apollo was a magnificent aberration, a giant leap that started off as an American expression of technological power that was suddenly hijacked by the enormity of it all and ended as a Global Triumph. Americans on the Moon? No! Humans on on the Moon! And in accepting that truism America's standing reached its zenith. Apollo 11 may not have been the start of the Global Village meme... ("Earthrise" Apollo 8 and Telstar are contenders) but it was certainly one of those moments when THE WORLD held it's collective breath.
Some four decades later the VSE of Bush the Younger was all about America and its hegemony over the resources of space.
"The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests," (National Space Policy.)
A Monroe doctrine for the 21st Century.
IMHO this truly was a Giant Leap backwards. If the internationalism of the Obama Administration can steer NASA to develop an inclusive system that enables the Global Village and its sons and daughters to send robotic explorers. And the occasional human (repair) crew! It would go a long way to restoring what has been sadly lost in the last 40 years. "Share and Enjoy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Share_and_Enjoy

The Apollo legacy is that the United States can do anything it wants in a short time frame, when there is political support to do it! Proof is that nobody else has done it in 40 yrs and it will take at least 50 yrs before anyone may possibly do it again.

I was 15 at the time and just started 2 weeks of Boy Scout camp the day of the landing. I missed the landing completly and listened to the 1st hour of the moon walk
on a transistor radio before my batteries died. I was crushed to miss it as I had watched every miniute possible of coverage since Al Shepard's Mercury flight.

What kept me interested as a youth was that every flight was a stepping stone to the Moon. Each flight did something new, longer duration, space walks, rendevous, robotic recon with surveyor, lunar orbiter and mariner flying by Mars. Then finaly testing the Apollo hardware in LEO then in lunar orbit. Those were the Golden Years. Since then we have either been stuck going around in LEO circles. Not surprising we lost the interest of last 2 generations of children since then. My daughter was infant when President Reagan proposed Space Station. She will be 25 soon and ISS is still not finished being built yet. It is hard to get kids interested in a project that takes so long. I have taken my children to several shuttle launches and to meet various astronauts, so they have a better knowldege than most kids. But that is only because I pushed them, not becuase they wanted it.

Once upon a time, a seven year old boy sat transfixed in front of his television set watching the grainy image of a man in a bulky, white space suit step on to the surface of another world. That man was Neil Armstrong taking his giant leap for Mankind. That boy was me.

That night, NASA inspired me by demonstrating that dreams can become reality. The Apollo explorations of the Moon proved that a future imagined can be a future realized. Apollo took a boy’s spark of interest and turned that spark into a guiding light that illuminated his path forward, just as it did for countless other “children of Apollo.”

In 1983, that path brought me to the Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, OH (now, the Glenn Research Center), and my dream of being part of the exploration of space became a reality. And I have been living that dream for the last twenty-five years!

Was that spark of inspiration a primary goal of Apollo? Perhaps not an intentional one. But that spark of inspiration ignited a light in thousands of people who made Apollo a reality. To them, Apollo was NOT a tool of the Cold War. It was a road to the future.

But that road came to an abrupt end.

What can NASA do to inspire a new generation? NASA can lead Humanity on its first steps from the cradle of Earth out into the Universe. NASA can spark another guiding light, illuminating a path leading to the future. Just as they did from Apollo, new generations will find THEIR paths illuminated by that same light. They will carry that torch forward, continuing to light a path for successive generations that will follow. The technological developments we will make along the way will be applied to benefit those who remain at Home, just as they did in Apollo. But those inspired by the light will forever look outward.

Earth is a finite resource. It is threatened by Man. It is threatened by Nature. NASA’s goals should be twofold. First: to insure the sustainability of this planet for the benefit of the human race, NASA should be able to focus on energy independence, applying technologies developed for space exploration to benefit Earth. Solar energy systems, nuclear systems, fuel cell systems are examples of such technologies that, properly applied, could give us the energy independence we seek.

Second: to assure the survival of the human species by beginning the process of moving Humanity off this planet.

Science fiction? No. Something achievable in the near future? No. But if the process is not started now, given the technical hurdles that will have to be overcome (many of which we probably don’t even fully appreciate yet) the human race will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Our future lies out there; one giant leap at a time for all Mankind!

Frank's note: Jeff, well said and many thanks for sharing your story!

I agree with Paul and Dennis that it’s a waste of effort to try to build public support for space in general. Space , like railroads, bird watching and auto racing is only of interest to a segment of a population. Apollo only achieved national support because President Kennedy fist position as a race between the capitalist system and communism. When he was killed young it became a national crusade to the memory of President Kennedy to see it through to the end.

Its time to stop looking at one space vision and one space goal. Instead we need to start looking at what is achievable with resources that don’t require a national crusade to achieve. Lunar development is one of the space segments. But in order for it to succeed we need to take another page out of the 1960’s space play book as a solution and take it away from NASA and give it to a dedicated organization.

In 1962 communication satellites were taken from NASA and given to a dedicated public-private organization, Comsat. Its laid the foundation for the most vigorous and profitable of today’s space commerce industries. Comsats are a space activity is that is self-sustaining regardless of changes of government administration or public opinion. Its driven by simple economic factors now. We need to move the Moon into this same category.

What is needed is a Lunar Development Authority built on the comsat model. Give it a chunk of money up front as a initial investment by the federal government with the authority to raise additional funding in global capital markets as needed for projects and joint ventures. Then let the LDA begin the task of development the Moon. Allow NASA to move on to other goals, just as it did when comsat was created.

Frank's note: Tom, it is never a waste to educate people and make them aware of both their history and their legacies as citizens. However, I am in full agreement with you re: the lunar development authority concept. Buzz is pushing this with speeches and presentations over the summer-and watch for his bold ideas in the Aug issue of Pop Mechanics.

The legacy of Apollo is simple. If people cannot be intimately involved in the program, then it will fail. It will fail miserably. The first Apollo missions and the eventual collapse of interest in Apollo is evidence of that.

Apollo 11 said "we are on the moon!" and the public, up until that point, was completely amazed and enthralled.

By Apollo 13 the public could care less, until it heard that we had men that were about to die. Then they cared again.

Then it was downhill from there, and it continues to be this way.

I try to see an ISS transit whenever I can, the nights here in Colorado are pretty darn clear, and it's always an amazing sight. The other night a couple of kids were hanging out just after the sun went down, and I was looking for a sighting opportunity. It comes up over the horizon, brightest object in the sky, and I tell the kids "Look! That's the international space station!" The "oohs" and "ahhs" resounded for the rest of the night.

When LRO images the Apollo landing sights (and even the prospector crash site) things should get quite interesting.

We need that spirit, we need that involvement. Sure NASA TV and the eductional outreach programs are great. But are the people of the world really able to be a part of the space program in an intimate way?

Send us some rovers to play with on the moon. Something. Make the stars worth something again. Too many people are looking down at their feet when the spirit of humanity is to look to the skies.

I was five when Apollo 11 touched down; I have very fuzzy memories of watching a very fuzzy image of Armstrong & Aldrin on the surface. I have much more vivid memories of watching Jim Hartz discussing the lunar surface ops of the later flights during NBC coverage, using little magnetic action figure astronauts walking on a lunar diorama. [I thought the model work was as cool as the real thing!]

I was delighted just a few weeks ago to see Jim Hartz host an Apollo 8 panel discussion at the LBJ library. Big auditorium, nearly every seat occupied. With that observation, I think the Apollo 11 anniversary CAN resonate.

I believe the key to getting it (and all spaceflight) to resonate with the public is effective, engaging storytelling that emotionally connects the public to the folks on the inside, using any and all media (including talks with students...Bravo!). Underlying this player/audience emotional link must be the promise/hope that eventually, but not too far away, we or our children will get a chance to do it too. (Which is where recasting the current program comes into play...)

That's why people were caught up in it back then; the news media was telling the story properly. I've elaborated on this point before:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/802/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/807/1

Thanks for offering up yet another very good discussion, Frank. Many valuable insights discussed above. [How much longer will Keith be away? ;-)]

When I was young, age 9, I was very enthusiastic about the space program. Now I have to recall old memories as to why. I had wanted to be part of something great, something that was part of the future, something were I would be part of a group working to do something extraordinary, and something to help humanity. Now space flight feels like something from the past, something routine and some what repetitive, and there is not the feeling that one can achieve individual and collective greatness by participating. Sure the astronauts achieve greatness, but what are the chances of a young person becoming an astronaut? Millions of young people vs 50 or so astronauts that may fly once in a career if they are lucky. A young person has a better chance of becoming a pro-sports entertainer athlete than an astronaut participating in a space mission. Sorry, but being an astronaut is not as exciting as it was 50 years ago.

The sales pitch that Apollo was for the betterment of mankind turned out not to be quit so true in the end; cold war etc. After visiting a Titan I missile silo which was build in 1960, it was striking how similar that technology is to the technology used on Apollo. In the end, Apollo was a very large and sophisticated manned ICBM.

The concern over having young people interested in space, science and math is also a hold over from the cold war. If we were going to beat the Russians in the long term technologically then we needed engineers, scientist and technologist in the future. I was sold on Apollo as a young person and dedicated my life to engineering as a result. It has been an interesting career but has fallen of the vision to help design manned vehicles and possibly work at a lunar facility as was advertised at the time. What sold me on space and engineerng turned out to be vapor, but such is life.

So want to make space significant to the public and the young, start with the truth. Then figure out how large numbers of the young and students can participate in the space program. Not as a few astronauts, but as large numbers of engineers, technicians, and technologist who actually build and test the hardware. Yes, this means making engineering as cool as being as astronaut. Remember, with out working hardware, no one is going any where. Perhaps the young have caught on to these facts and hence the lack of interest.

I think if a coherent set of long term Goals are developed, that make sense, and progress is made toward achieving these goals, then the public and the young will be very interested, but not before. The goal and progress were very apparent in the days of Apollo.

I was interviewing for a job at JSC when Apollo 11 landed and watched the landing in a motel at Houston Intercontinental Airport. There were no hotel rooms available in Clear Lake and JSC has not had this much attention since.
Having worked through Apollo, Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, Shuttle, and ISS, I think bureaucracy is the main stumbling block for progress. During Apollo, folks traveled without travel orders, items were ordered over the phone followed by a purchase order, contracts were let on one person's recommendation, and leaders were dictators. Request for Proposals had a few compliance requirements, compared to today's many pages. We had no "quality" programs that required us record every time we went to the restroom. If we needed anything, we ordered it. If we contacted a commercial company, they were very excited and willing to do anything we requested.
I don't have an answer for overcoming bureaucracy, NASA was not aware of the rules or ignored them in the beginning, but slowly evolved into a true government organization.
Charles

Go up two posts and read what Brian Bernhart said - that's me, amen. My belief now is that you will NEVER capture the imagination of the young and public with space as it was during the 1960s/Apollo, ever again. There is no frontier there anymore. The Moon and even Mars is "been there done that" to 99.9% of America.

Why do we think that people will be more excited about Antares 1 than they were about Apollo 17 (and they were pretty bored with the latter)? Why should they be, given the MUCH greater financial peril (20 trillion federal deficit by then?) America will face in 2022 compared to 1972?

The key is a sense of participation. We had it in the 1960s because there were only three TV channels on the rabbit ears and effectively only an excited Uncle Walter to listen to. Everybody was drinking Kool Aid from the same well. That media model is LONG dead and gone. Everybody plants their eyeballs today on their own personalized media experience and whatever fragmented sense of "participation" there is now sure doesn't have a subtitle "Live From The Moon". Anybody that thinks kids today want to become astronauts to experience the thrill of alien worlds hasn't seen them play online team Halo.

Mark my words, for all future generations cyberspace beats outer space hands down in the "sense of participation" department. Forget this "how do we interest the young in our old dreams" crap. It's as lost a cause as trying to get the "eagle with the olive branch landing on the moon" insignia to return to the back of an American coin.

Embrace the future. We'll discover superior intelligence in silicon we build ourselves long before we hear it over a radio telescope, and the only aliens we encounter in centuries to come will be DNAliens we create by injecting engineered double helix strands into ourselves.

Frank's note: Sorry but I can't disagree more. if we followed your prescription, all humans would need to do is hide under the bed until the machines took over! While the exploration of space may never again be framed in terms of the survival of the nation, we surely can find the communications concepts and tools to make it a part of everyone's world more clearly, and if we can't make spaceflight more exciting than we do now, it's time to give up!

The greatest legacy from Apollo ( and its predecessor programs) before NASA blew it with Challenger was total trust the Congress and the public had in the Agency. NASA's record and reputation for sucessfully accomplishing many first of the kind endeavours in an unknown and extreme environment and the risk challenges taken and mitigated was unparalled and in fact NASA's expertise was solicited post Apollo for many non-space problems and solutions.

Frank's note: You are right-if my health holds out, I'll have a new book out next year on exactly what we got from human spaceflight over the past half century...

Apollo only achieved national support because President Kennedy fist position as a race between the capitalist system and communism.

Actually, the moon race wasn't between capitalism and communism -- both sides had a socialist state enterprise assigned the task. It was a race between democracy and totalitarianism. We are still suffering the consequences of that (e.g. ESAS/Constellation). Let's hope that the next administrator tries to push things more in the direction of capitalism, with things like COTS, and commercial propellant delivery.

Frank's note: Rand, a strong and viable commercial space industry is not a substitute for a strong and viable federal space program. The two compliment each other but commercial space is not a excuse for the federal government to escape its responsibilities and the role that it-and only it-can play in the economic life and strategic interests of the nation. The kinds of long term research in science and engineering done by NASA is not and cannot be duplicated by the private sector...NASA, on the other hand, should use the entrepreneurial sector to get itself outof the launch business by fully privatizing LEO and space transportation, don't you think?

> I think if a coherent set of long term Goals are developed, that make sense, and progress is made toward achieving these goals, then the public and the young will be very interested

I agree. To go anywhere you have to decide where you're going.

"Small moon base" isn't far out enough. We basically already did that. Flying a little tin can hut to the moon isn't a feat after apollo.

There needs to be an ambitious goal that requires other ambitious goals to get there. It needs to be the greatest task we can do today, because only after succeeding there can we tackle what we CAN'T do today.

"ISS research focus on sustaining life in earth. Exercise, food development. Lunar resource facility with robotic fuel depot in orbit. Lunar elevator. Giant SETI and NEO arrays on the dark side powered by light on the bright side. Way station at L2. Geology research station and mining equipment on mars. Reusable entry-reentry vehicles for moon and mars. Solar system ferry with artificial gravity and large crew and cargo capacity. Simple mini-shuttle for getting on and off earth. Sustained life in space cuts the cost of moving life on and off earth."

That is the sort of ambitious goal that interests me, and would interest other people because every milestone would be something crazy. People love novelty more than anything. And public, private, and international organizations can participate in such a plan because there is more than enough work to go around. Set out a plan, plan out the stages, and stage your coup of space. Winner!

Frank's query: "Reusable reentry vehicles for the moon and Mars"??? That's way above our technological capabilities today-and likely tomorrow, isn't it?

I think a lot of Americans will find it a pleasant distraction from the economic woes and may even take some inspiration away from the celebrations.

However, it'll probably only resonate when pop-culture personalities show *un-characteristic* excitement about how Apollo is related the adventures yet to come... They've gotta show that there is something unique about what's happening and it's worth some keen attention.

...have some stories, trivia knowledge, etc. may go a long way at that bar, dinner parties, etc. in July...

--Shalin

Frank's note: Maybe Tom Hanks? James Cameron? A rapper? (yes, I'm that hard up!)

Then figure out how large numbers of the young and students can participate in the space program. Not as a few astronauts, but as large numbers of engineers, technicians, and technologist who actually build and test the hardware.

That's already happening, and has been for decades. It doesn't work to inspire.

What we need is to make it possible for them to go, instead of "a few astronauts."

Frank's note: My idea-floated in another post-to actually fly students into space- I think still has merit. I'm talking about students at least 18 years of age-maybe work on their experiment throughout their HS years and then take it up upon graduation? Surely there's some deep pocketed mogul somewhere in America that cares about young people?

Watching the first moon landings on television as a teenager was one of the greatest moments of my life. But it was also amazing how disinterested most of the American public became in the space program almost immediately after the first moon landing. Why?

I think it was because most Americans eventually came to view the Apollo program as more a 'space spectacular' rather than a pioneering effort. And once they had seen that act, most of the original excitement was gone.

The politicians had no intention at that time of using the already developed Apollo infrastructure to establish a permanent base on the moon in order to begin the expansion of human civilization into the rest of the solar system.

The Constellation program would be just another 'space spectacular' sortie program, IMO, designed to take an 'elite' few to the lunar surface.

If we really want to maintain public interest and support for our manned space program then we need to establish a permanently manned and continuously growing facility on the Moon which the general public will view as-- part of their own destiny.

Then people on Earth will look up at the Moon and know that we also live there-- on a new extraterrestrial continent-- that will eventually grow into a small town that will someday grow into a large city: a place for science, commercial and industrial development, and also an exotic destination for tens of thousands of wealthy tourist.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/01/space-frontier.html
Frank's note: But we have a permanent facility in LEO now that not only fails to inspire people, most people don't even know it's up there...why would a lunar version be any more successful in getting interest increased?

Burt Rutan and Elon Musk and Richard Branson are in effect the embodiment of the true legacy of Apollo. They were all motivated by the extraordinary achievements of Apollo, followed by a dissapointing 4 decades, to make their own mark for mankind in space, focused initially on space tourism, eventually for all. They are surely aware that space tourism is an enabling technology that will result in more reliable and much cheaper access to space for all, and simultaneously make space relevant to the general public again.

Once the commercial space tourism industry has replaced expendable launch vehicles with reusable space technology and airline-like operations, then mankind will be more able to use space to tackle its urgent problems; problems like energy, resource limitations, asteroid defense,etc.

Meanwhile, NASA could usefully work on leading edge technology problems, such as engines for interplanetary travel, hypersonics, ISRO operations, etc.

> Frank's query: "Reusable reentry vehicles for the moon and Mars"??? That's way above our technological capabilities today-and likely tomorrow, isn't it?

I'm thinking of the Lunar Lander Challenge x-prize craft, which is the child of the DC-X project, which is the sort of thing that would use fuel produced on the moon to fly on and off the moon. If there was no space elevator you could even use a big fat robot DC-X to fly fuel from the lunar surface to an unmanned fuel station, over and over...

I don't know the physics details, but I do know that it unreasonably hard right now to do single stage up and down on earth, but its very reasonable on the moon, and I assume a fun challenge on mars.

I know Armadillo Aerospace at least is working on that lunar lander capability to this day...

Some time ago, I wrote a book that sums up my views of what the era of Apollo meant and why it was successful. I don't know if the book will ever be published, but here is an excerpt from the foreword of the book that sums up my feelings about those times.
"This book provides a look at the driving forces and the undaunted perserverance that allowed NASA to respond to President Kennedy’s challenge with magnificent achievements. It does not look at the technical challenges, the materials challenges, or the management challenges that have been exhaustively documented in other works. This book looks at the real influences that allowed NASA to achieve “out of this world” accomplishments. It’s people. It describes the successes and failures, the exhilaration and frustration, and the personal achievements and losses of the people who were “in the trenches every day during that time; as viewed by one who was there. This book deals with the work and play of the many people who contributed so much and asked so little in return. These people would not be demeaned or discouraged by statements that the Apollo Program was a political Cold War stunt, or a technical public works program. These people just wanted to be a part of something significant --- something that contributed to the betterment of man --- something that would bring the world together in a time of the war and human strife. In this, they received their reward. This book is dedicated to these tireless souls."

Regarding what is needed now to incentivize the new generation of young people to return to the moon, it can be summed up simply --- Helium 3.

>>Frank's note: Maybe Tom Hanks? James Cameron? A rapper? (yes, I'm that hard up!)

Yes them, but also...their kids or kids age 8-18.

--S

What if NASA went away tomorrow? Would the general public care? Would there be an out cry of any kind? You've seen the show "World without People". What about a "World without NASA". Think about it.

[[[Actually, the moon race wasn't between capitalism and communism -- both sides had a socialist state enterprise assigned the task.]]]

I know it has become popular for libertarians to generate misinformation by the misuse of terms like capitalism, fascism and socialism in recent years as a bid to promote their economic philosophy. But the United States was by any measure a capitalist economy in the 1960’s where privately owned firms competed against each other to supply the needs of NASA. This was the NASA advantage, the depth and speed of innovation found in a capitalist economy. By contrast the Soviet Union was a communism economy without any privately firms in competition against each to provide the best quality systems and technology. Everything was built by the state without competition or profit motive. So Apollo was a competition between a capitalist and a communism system by any generally accepted definition of capitalism and communism.

To claim that the success of Apollo was the result of some sort of socialist enterprise is really an insult to both the contractors and government employees involved. Government agencies are not socialist enterprises. Or do you consider the Department of Defense as a socialist enterprise?

Your argument only serves to undermine one of the legacy’s of Apollo which was its demonstration to the world of the superior ability of a capitalist economy to innovate and take on a challenges. That is why Ayn Rand called it one of humanity’s greatest achievements and used it as a example of the superiority of the American capitalist system.

I have often wondered how much further America would be along the road to space settlement and lunar economic development if space advocate groups hadn’t attracted the interest of so many libertarians that have used them more as a platform for promoting their economic philosophy then for advocating solid economic development strategies. Fortunately that was one hurdle that neither Apollo or Comsat had to overcome in the 1960’s and I have often wondered if that was one of the reasons for the success of national space policy in that era. And the lack of it since.

Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans do not remember the landings but do remember the Fox special "showing" that the Moon landings were fake. Never mind that the show was totally discredited; Americans saw it on TV, so it must be true.

I think the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 will be met with indifference and apathy at best by the general public. Most will just ignore it.

[[[What if NASA went away tomorrow? Would the general public care? Would there be an out cry of any kind? You've seen the show "World without People". What about a "World without NASA". Think about it.]]]

If you are a space scientist then your world would appear to end. But it wouldn't as more opportunities would actually emerge as space is developed economically, just as the development of the railroad network in the American west created major opportunities for sustained science research. It was no coincidence that great western dinosaur rush started less then a decade after the transcontinental railroad was built.

While for those interested in the economic development of space it would be liberating as they would finally start to look beyond NASA for their business models and funding, as many have already. And the DOD could pick up where it left off with DC-X.

But then you don't need NASA to go away to start thinking in terms of space policy beyond NASA.

Frank's note: if we can't make spaceflight more exciting than we do now, it's time to give up!

Rickyjames is correct; the entertainment and excitement value of space exploration is gone for the most part for the public at large. His other point, if I understand him correctly, is that no one is going to come down out of the sky and save us. Humanity has huge problems to overcome at this point. Dennis Wingo has the right idea for the right reasons. I wish more people would listen to his message.

It’s not about excitement, space cost to much for mere entertainment and excitement. What space is about is survival. The core question, In my opinion, is:

Do we, humanity, need to go into space in order to survive at current and growing population levels here on earth?

I think the answer is YES! We face a very difficult future as a species. The foremost problem is that we are running out of energy sources to support agriculture, transportation and manufacturing. A bunch of windmills and solar power farms are never going to provide the power levels of carbon and nuclear fueled turbine generators. The carbon is becoming scarce and that is the BIG problem. We need a hydrogen based economy but its not technologically feasible at this point on a large scale. In order to solve the energy problems we will need to go into space and utilize the resources from the moon and asteroid belt.

In my opinion, That should be the GOAL!

I agree, Apollo was too long ago and too disconnected from most of today's Americans. You have to be 45+ to remember it, and folks below that are way too distracted texting, gaming, and raising kids.

To generate some buzz, I think a Survivor-type reality show where high school seniors competed to win a trip to ISS could succeed.

Better yet, make it an international competition just to get into the show, then have NASA put the contestants through training and sim's to find the best astronaut candidate. Motion-based training, virtual reality sessions, survival training...

Maybe the show winner has to create a project that includes a robot. Then have 50 folks from the TV audience chosen to play with the robot remotely, maybe a robot war against the show winner...

Seems like that would generate some interest.

Frank's note: Sounds like a pretty good idea you have! Better than watching Blago eat worms!

By contrast the Soviet Union was a communism economy without any privately firms in competition against each to provide the best quality systems and technology.

You never heard of the Soviet design bureaus? Arguably, there was more competition in their aerospace industry than exists today in ours, with all of the consolidation that has resulted in a single company that builds air transports and a single company that launches EELVs.

I have often wondered how much further America would be along the road to space settlement and lunar economic development if space advocate groups hadn’t attracted the interest of so many libertarians

Yeah, that's right. It's all the libertarians' fault. It had nothing to do with how horrifically expensive it was the way that NASA chose to do it.

<rolling eyes>

Rand & Thomas:

Let's be realistic: Apollo et al certainly wasn't pure socialism, but it wasn't pure capitalism either. One might define it as our nation's first major attempt at a hybrid scheme bent on a very focused goal that didn't involve military conflict.

I found McDougall's analysis in his "The Heavens and the Earth" illuminating, especially in regard to Eisenhower's reluctance to let go of the "pure" capitalist model and fully embrace the notion of our country becoming a technocracy. [It certainly blows away the historical fallacy that he was a doddering old grandfather not cognizant of what was going on.] McDougall points out that the Soviets pursued this concept from their beginnings (and we see how well that turned out), but it was also something which Kennedy and Johnson were fully ready to implement--in our 'military-industrial-complex-capitalist' way--in the furrow already plowed by FDR during the Depression & WWII.

One can't deny that the "govt-dictates/industry complies" space program approach accomplished the goal (and some others afterward, e.g., shuttle), but as Rand points out, it was extremely expensive and NASA is still operating inside that same very expensive model, potentially shackling future space efforts for decades to come.

A new govt/industry model isn't necessary to move forward, but I suspect that a number of alternate schemes could move things forward more quickly, especially if our ultimate objective involves the inclusion of the entire solar system into our economic sphere.

Do we want to plod or sprint?

Frank's note: The problem with doing away with the Cold War model space program is...who will step up and recommend closing field centers? As long as NASA's budget is divolved among 10 centers spread geographically across the country, you begin each budget cycle with about half of the money already committed....

@ > Old NASA Coot at May 31, 2009 5:57 PM

I for one would buy your book. Even if its incomplete, not entirely organized, and available only as a xerox copy or electronic data file. You have something of real value to share.

blbernhard@mindspring.com

I can't beleve the best ideas getting kicked around here are Survivor type TV shows that effectively promote a lottery ticket to get to ride on a Soyuz or Orion to ISS. If that's all you've got, time to hang it up and face reality - space is increasingly passe to the public. And I say this as a true Hubble hugger and somebody who hopes he lives long enough to see an Enceladus geyser sample reutrn mission....

Let me pose a question. Say Mars had a breathable oxygen nitrogen atmosphere instead of razor thin carbon dioxide, reservoirs of water miles deep stretching to the horizon instead of bone dry sand dunes, and reachable by humans for only $10,000 PER PERSON in six DAYS time instead of at $100,000+ PER POUND in six MONTHS time....

Would these factors be enough of a gamechanger to kickstart public interest and colonization? Would a frantic public suddenly be lining up at NASA's doorsteps, taking a numbered ticket for their ride to humanity's future to escape from overcrowded cities and live on the frontier?

So why isn't anybody lobbying to settle Antarctica?

So why isn't anybody lobbying to settle Antarctica?

Extinction (It's still Earth).

Rand,

You are using a microeconomic perspective to look at what is a macroeconomic issue. Yes, you may have different design teams “bidding” on the Soviet design, but it was in the context of a communism economic system where innovation and motivation was limited to prize competitions for contributing to the revolution. The U.S. firms by contrast had not only innovation and motivation resulting from a vigorous capitalist economy but also the massive technological resources it generated. Compare the primitive technology used in the Soviet space systems to the cutting edge available for Apollo as symbolic of the two different economic systems.

As for there being only one firm that makes commercial aircraft today and one alliance for the EELV, that is what happens sometimes when the market decides, in this case the market deciding that there is only room for a single producer for each in the United States. Note there is no laws or regulations preventing another U.S. firm from building commercials transports. The only reason is that it appears the market simply isn’t large enough for two U.S. firms. If you advocate free markets for everything you need to recognize that sometimes the choice of the free market is a monopoly.

Also suppose that instead of doing the commercial approach used for the X-33 that was advocated by the space libertarians in the 1990’s NASA had followed a traditional flyoff procurement model? One based on the one used by the USAF for its light fighter the produced the F-16 and via the YF-17, the F-18 for the Navy? If NASA followed a traditional procurement approach the Shuttles would likely have been in museums years ago replaced by the RLVs that won the competition. There was no show stopper for the Lockheed X-33 that couldn’t have been fixed with some additional funds to develop the composite tank technology. But NASA wouldn’t fund it and Lockheed didn’t see a reason when it realized the market was just not there for its RLV.

Now suppose that NASA forgets COTS-D and does a traditional flyoff competition today for an RLV to replace the Shuttle? How more likely is it for NASA to find a replacement design if the criteria for selection is the actual quality of the design, not if you are lucky enough to have some deep pocket investor bankrolling a less the optimal design?

Bob,

Actually Apollo was based on an economic strategy that has worked since the founding the the country. Look the Postal Roads model for development in the early 1800's. The Railway Post Act of 1838, the Pacific Railway Act of 1862, the Panama Canal, TVA, BPA, The Interstate Highway System, Comsat, etc. All were "hybrid" models as you call them.

The strength of the American economic system has been that in the U.S. economic development has always been based on a pragmatic approach that blended public-private partnerships as needed to get the job done. Unfortunately space policy appears to have stopped following that formula for success in the 1980's seeking to find some magic market based solution that is actually at odds with the successful American tradition of infrastructure development. Its no wonder space development is stalled. Its time to go back to the pragmatic approach that has always worked historically.

You are using a microeconomic perspective to look at what is a macroeconomic issue. Yes, you may have different design teams “bidding” on the Soviet design, but it was in the context of a communism economic system where innovation and motivation was limited to prize competitions for contributing to the revolution. The U.S. firms by contrast had not only innovation and motivation resulting from a vigorous capitalist economy but also the massive technological resources it generated. Compare the primitive technology used in the Soviet space systems to the cutting edge available for Apollo as symbolic of the two different economic systems.

I'm trying to understand this econobabble. The bottom line is that the Soviets/Russians can get to the space station after 2011, and the US cannot. So who had the better system?

And the notion that this is somehow the fault of "libertarians" remains laughably ludicrous. There was never anything capitalistic, or free market, about the US space program in the sixties. And barely so today.

Thomas,

Your comparison of the US space program to previous US govt/industry development processes is flawed.

In most of the examples you cite, the govt defined the requirement for services or identified a need to fill, then competed contracts, etc, to have private industry come forward with their solutions, starting with industry-offered designs and following through to industry-defined execution or implementation processes.

NASA from its inception in 1958 dictated the engineering solution (whether it was a Max Faget spacecraft or Von Braun team booster design) and imposed it on industry (sometimes down to some unbelievably tight specifications), then had them develop it, test it, and perfect it primarily in govt laboratories and govt testing facilities. Then govt employees (or LOE contractors) executed the missions and provided mission support functions. This model was essentially continued through Shuttle and ISS.

THIS was the govt technocracy (essentially a peace-time Manhattan Project approach) that Eisenhower resisted and that Kennedy & Johnson embraced.

I can't deny that this govt/industry arrangement can produce results and can 'get the job done' as you say, but at what cost in terms of inefficiently spent capital and time, and, most vitally, lost potential innovation?

Under O'Keefe and Steidle NASA was heading toward your suggested fly-off competition operating model (which DOES compare better to your cited examples), but Griffin squashed that and reshaped Constellation along the old NASA paradigm: govt dictates the precise design, industry builds that design under an exclusive contract.

Perhaps the Augustine review will recommend switching back. Somehow, though, given the current Administration's 'hands on' approach wherein they even take direct control of car manufacturing, I remain highly doubtful that such a shift is in the offing.

Rand: Nice point. Funny, they kept flying that darn Soyuz through our LAST spaceflight gap, too!

Rand,

If you don't at least understand the basic terminology of a field they you shouldn't be commenting on it. Just pick up any basic Econ101 textbook and you will see exactly what those terms mean. And perhaps learn a bit about economic science. Or just google them.

I also find it funny how space libertarians claim they are influencing how NASA funds projects like X-33 and COTS on one hand, the distance themselves from the results of those policies on the other.

The bottom line is that the Soviets/Russians can get to the space station after 2011, and the US cannot.

I should add that if the US does fill the gap, it will be via private enterprise (Falcon 9/Dragon), not the NASA megaproject.

Bob,

Sorry, but Apollo was handled like any other government project. The government came up with basic specs using studies done with industry and then firms bid on how to meet them. NASA then worked with the winning contractors to refine them. This was no different then the Interstate System and the Federal Highway System where the roads are designed by government engineers and private firms build them. Or the Panama Canal. Or how the military develops advance aircraft.

The government came up with basic specs using studies done with industry and then firms bid on how to meet them.

Too bad it didn't do that with ESAS/Constellation.

Frank,

Reviewing this thread I think the legacy of Apollo that Buzz needs to remind the world of is that Apollo demonstrated once more that the greatest moments in American history are when ideology is put aside and the nation as a whole comes together to focus on a single great objective. 100 years ago it was the Panama Canal. After Dec. 7, 1941 it was World War II. And then Apollo in the turbulent 1960's.

Folks need to stop worrying if a particular solution is Socialist or Capitalist, Libertarian or Liberal, but instead should focus on if it will make American more secure as a nation and/or increase the national wealth. In short will it move us into a better future.

Apollo should also be a reminder that American has too much to do if its going to build a better future and has no time to waste on ideological debates like other nations do. Ideological extremism has never had a role to play in the traditional "Can do!" spirit of America. Get the job done has been the only philosophy that has driven the U.S. and it is the philosophy that made America Great.

That is what Apollo symbolized to the world and provided a reminder of in what was a tough decade politically and socially. That American can do anything it sets its mind to do. And its what America's next step in space should symbolize as well.

There is a great statement along these lines from an article Theodore Roosevelt wrote during height of the Panic of 1893 when European investors triggered a American banking collapse by pulling their investments out of the U.S.

[[[We Americans have many grave problems to solve, many threatening evils to fight, and many deeds to do, if, as we hope and believe, we have the wisdom, the strength, the courage, and the virtue to do them. But we must face facts as they are. We must neither surrender ourselves to a foolish optimism, nor succumb to a timid and ignoble pessimism. Our nation is that one among all the nations of the earth which holds in its hands the fate of the coming years. We enjoy exceptional advantages, and are menaced by exceptional dangers; and all signs indicate that we shall either fail greatly or succeed greatly. I firmly believe that we shall succeed; but we must not foolishly blink the dangers by which we are threatened, for that is the way to fail. On the contrary, we must soberly set to work to find out all we can about the existence and extent of every evil, must acknowledge it to be such, and must then attack it with unyielding resolution. There are many such evils, and each must be fought after a fashion; yet there is one quality which we must bring to the solution of every problem,- that is, an intense and fervid Americanism. We shall never be successful over the dangers that confront us; we shall never achieve true greatness, nor reach the lofty ideal which the founders and preservers of our mighty Federal Republic have set before us, unless we are Americans in heart and soul, in spirit and purpose, keenly alive to the responsibility implied in the very name of American, and proud beyond measure of the glorious privilege of bearing it.]]]

Theodore Roosevelt
TRUE AMERICANISM
April 1894
The Forum Magazine
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trta.html

Apollo reminded everyone that working together as Americans there is nothing we are not able to do. Its something we need to be reminded on in this year of extremist partisan politics.

Ronald Reagan put it a bit more concisely.

“America is too great a nation to have small dreams.”

Ronald Reagan

Rand,

That is something I will agree on. It was a mistake that NASA didn't work closer with industry on ESAS/Constellation and just tossed out the road map studies that were going on.

Tom

This is a good discussion. I think what grabs people the most about space is the experience of it, and not the hardware or work required to get there. Sure, there will always be the scientist and engineer types that like the nuts and bolts of space travel, but I firmly believe that for the vast majority of folks it's the experience of weightlessness and the unique views of earth and other worlds that builds the passion. So, as Frank and others have mentioned we need to some how find access to space for others, not just the 0.000000....0000001% supper smart/elite. This is where space tourism plays a role.

Right now,today, it seems disingenuous to tell a young person that if thay work really hard you could be an astronaut.....like saying if you work really hard you can win the Loto - doesn't make sense.

I recognize that there are many jobs in the space business that do not involve actually enter space....but it's the dream of going in person(as I have said before and believe)that is the real source of inspiration, and that opportunity (of going in person) looks much farther away today than 40 years ago.

Phil

Thomas,

I disagree, again. 'Like any govt project' is a dangerous and oversimple phrase when speaking of history. The 'basic' specs defined by NASA for Apollo were nowhere near as basic as those defined for the transcontinental railroad, the George Washington Bridge, or the NYC subway system, just to cite three examples. To compare Apollo to the transcontinental railroad would be to suggest that the govt dictated to the UP & SP precisely what type of locomotives they had to run on their tracks...and one glance at the famous photo shows two different locomotives meeting at Promontary Point, not identical govt-dicated designs.

And even your two specific examples, the IHS & the Panama Canal, were designed by engineers appointed to specific govt commissions created for and focused on achieving the given task, not CS employees of in-place govt agencies. In many of those instances, the corresponding govt commission was dissolved once the task was completed.

I did not deny that all of the instances you cited were unlike Apollo, but the degree of specificity...in other words, the degree to which a standing govt agency defined the final solution versus tapping competing bidders to each offer up their best crack at a best solution...was nearly unprecedented with the space program. Compare the huge variety of airframe designs explored (and many developed) during WWII for the military versus the designs offered to NASA in the bidding on Apollo. For Apollo, every single design offered by industry was Max Faget's design (plus or minus small variations on secondary systems), because that was how tightly NASA defined the requirements.

The US space program, in parallel/intertwined with the post-WWII military-industrial complex, created a new style of govt-run high-tech development and procurement, wherein an entire standing bureaucracy of govt engineers and scientists now design the final systems they require, and then industry builds it...modifying it as necessary during that development when the original govt-dicated design doesn't meet the incestuous requirements that stem from that same govt-provided design.

The ESAS-begotten Constellation was only the most recent, most blatant, and most onerous example of this approach.

But I agree on your other summary points. I just hope we can collectively choose the best-working approach to make broad progress as quickly as possible.

Bob,

Once again NASA wasn't the anomaly in procurement you make it out to be. The Army had a long history (starting in the 1700's) of offering detailed specs for weapons that it developed in cooperation with industry and then built under a competitive bidding system. Its a tradition that continues to this day. And don't forget that the Saturn V came out of this tradition. Remember NASA Marshall was once the Army's Redstone Arsenal.

Again, its part of a pattern of flexibility and adaptability that makes the American economy so successful. Of individuals focusing on the best way of accomplishing the task, not the ideology of the solution.

As for the transcontinental railroad it should be noted that the Union Pacific made little progress west until General Grenville M. Dodge (ret.) took over construction after the Civil War and introduced the construction methods developed by Union Army railroaders during the war by hiring many veterans of the U.S. Military Railroads. Yep, they wore civilian cloths and drew their paychecks from a corporation, but they learned their trade while working for Uncle Sam.

One key advantage the United States has always had was an economic system that encouraged experts like General Dodge to move between the government and private worlds, taking their expertise with them.

General Medaris who was Von Braun's commander at Redstone is another good modern example. He enlisted in the Marines in World War I, then after the war he became an Army Officer. Then getting out of the Army he spent 10 years as working in merchandising in Latin American for a retail chain. He went back into the Army in World War II where he was part of the team that identified Von Braun as a key asset. He then guided the Army missile program based on Von Braun's work until 1960, supervising the launch of Explorer I and the start of work on the Saturn family of rockets. Then he retired from the Army and became the CEO of Lionel trains for a number of years.

That is why in many ways the entire argument of government vs private is useless. In many cases its the same people just working different hats as needed to get the job done.

That has always been the essence of American success, focusing on the best strategy to get the job done, not if its a government or private organization doing it.

The key is what is the best mix of public-private assets for developing a sustainable lunar base. Not if parts of it happen to be government owned and others privately run.

“The bottom line is that the Soviets/Russians can get to the space station after 2011, and the US cannot.”

At the rate of 40 years and several more decades before the US returns, FIAT will get there first!

That is why in many ways the entire argument of government vs private is useless. In many cases its the same people just working different hats as needed to get the job done.

There are huge differences between the two in incentive structures and the degree to which technical and economic decisions are driven by politics.

Editor's note: Rand, the large public government programs you constantly complain about are implemented, in most part, by large aerospace companies - you know, the private sector - the same guys who pay your salary. Find a new complaint, please - this one is rather tired

Thomas,

It is a historian's prerogative to color events in such a way that it seems to defend their premise, but this does not alter the original events themselves.

Whether a design was govt-detailed-designed or offered up by private industry HAS made a difference (both good and bad), and to deny the differences will send us down the path of repeating mistakes wherein the wrong approach failed miserably or cost a debilitating fortune in a given application.

Regarding Von Braun & the Army, the development of the Saturn was part of the evolving post-WWII technocracy of which I spoke; this paradigm shift (which you insist on denying) wasn't exclusive to Apollo or NASA. Yes, it "worked" in the case of the Saturn, and also in the case of Apollo.

But was it really the best route to take, given that, to paraphrase a president, "we pissed it all away" only ten years later since it was too expensive to maintain? [And now we're eliminating the singular Shuttle, too, because it costs too much to maintain...hauntingly familiar, don't you think?]

If, as you say, the two avenues to technological advancement toward specific economic development are interchangeable, then there is no need to pursue different approaches, approaches that have worked better in other areas of technology advancement. Consequently, we are likely destined to piss away the lunar base, too, a decade or so after we emplace such a gov't-designed outpost, because it, too, will be too expensive to maintain and too limited in capability when, all the while alongside, the wider realm of our economic engines of ingenuity never had a chance to provide possible alternative concepts or architectures that might have offered a better chance at long-term sustainability and perhaps a viable expanding set of industries in their wake.

Actually, I am beginning to suspect that we are in violent agreement but may be quibbling over semantics. I'm not advocating a pure private-enterprise solution to settling the Moon and beyond; I'm just suggesting that the current NASA model of top-down dictated-detailed-design probably isn't the most effective or affordable means of pursuing sustainable space exploration and development.

Wouldn't you agree that the last 40 years of operational human spaceflight, despite its significant accomplishments but with its boom & bust surging and repeated abandonings of in-place capabilities, demonstrates that a different approach is worth considering? I personally think O'Keefe & Steidle were on the right track, and in fact were more in line with what you suggest is "the way it always was."

Rand, the large public government programs you constantly complain about are implemented, in most part, by large aerospace companies - you know, the private sector - the same guys who pay your salary.

When they work cost-plus contracts for the government, they work much more like a government bureaucracy than a private-sector company. I've worked in both, and there's a big difference.

Editor's note: ah, so private sector solutions are not always the best .... the story continue to morph ... stay tuned.

...ah, so private sector solutions are not always the best...

I'm not sure how you get that from anything I wrote. It in fact seems like a non sequitur. Particularly since I've never claimed that "private sector solutions are always the best."

Editor's note: read your own comments.

Bob,

I think we are closer in agreement then it sounds. The key is not who is doing the research and design, but what is the function that design is supposed to serve.

Apollo had three interconnected design goals. Get humans to the Moon, return the safety to Earth, and do it before the Russians. Costs and sustainable were not a design requirement so I am not sure why people get upset that is did not achieve a design requirement it was never intended to achieve.

Now the Shuttle is another story and a sad one. The original designs submitted by industry were true TSTO, but the collapse of 1960's bull market and economic crisis of the 1970's resulted in its budget being cut, and then to save more money the bright one that it could used to launch intelligence satellites came. When the smoke cleared what was intended to be a TSTO with a 10,000 lb became the STS we know today with throw-away tank and recoverable solid rocket boosters. And large wings to give it a 1500 mile cross range. And a neat one sheet thermal replaced with titles... Well you know the rest of the story. It had noble design goals, but they were compromised by external pressures.

Then the ISS followed are similar series of design changes as NASA lost its sense of purpose and became a victim of external forces it could never quite understand or overcome because of a cultural mindset based on its glory years. Really not much different then GM's story the last 40 years when you get down to it.

And that is why I agree with you NASA is not the best option for sustainable space development. In fact I no longer consider it a factor. NASA has evolved into a science agency far more then one focused on economic development or advancing technology.

The best option I feel to enable sustainable space development, one which I have proposed in a chapter in the book, Beyond Earth, is a Lunar Base Authority. A public-private partnership in the spirit of the public-private projects like TVA, Comsat, etc. It would have a core of government funding to do experiments in ISRU and to survey the Moon for natural resources. Then bonding authority to raise the funds needed for joint-ventures with industry to develop the different elements needed for a sustainable lunar presence.

It would need to be set up by an Act of Congress, but it wouldn’t have to be a dedicated act. It could be simply an amendment to an appropriate bill.

Unlike NASA, its mission would not be about going to the Moon for science, but bringing the Moon into humanity’s sphere of economic activity. As a result the LBA would not focus on sending humans to the Moon just for the sake up them being there. Instead humans would end up on the Moon as a result of serving an economic function by being there. And yes, one of those function could be doing science under contract to government agencies, universities, etc. But economics, not science, not international politics, would be the driver which is why it would be sustainable.

More to the point a LBA is in the American tradition of developing pragmatic practical solutions to get a job done. That is the sum lesson of the examples I discussed. Each are different in details, but each are designed to leverage the strengths of public and private resources to accomplish a difficult job, jobs that for the most part been too difficult for other countries to succeed at or even attempt. That is the strength of the American economic system.

Thomas,

I will grant you that your LBA solution may be the one that will work...or at least offer a fairly reasonable chance to establish a sustainable foothold. [Perhaps the term "Lunar Development Authority" might be more viable, being less 'Buck Rogers' in tone.]

And after reading your initial post over on the Zubrin thread, my opinion of your analysis skills went up markedly. :-)

Thomas, I think that's an excellent idea, if politically unviable.

I said at the time of the announcement of the VSE that if the administration was serious about it, it wouldn't put NASA in charge, but should rather set up a new entity for the job (just as SDIO was established in the eighties when it was recognized that the Air Force wasn't going to properly implement missile defense). But unfortunately, one of the prime requirements of the VSE was to keep NASA busy after the ISS was developed (just as Shuttle had to keep the parking lots full after Apollo and ISS had to do so after Shuttle development).

Rand,

[[[But unfortunately, one of the prime requirements of the VSE was to keep NASA busy after the ISS was developed (just as Shuttle had to keep the parking lots full after Apollo and ISS had to do so after Shuttle development).]]]

That is why I am glad there seems to be a move to focus NASA on Mars while by-passing the Moon. A LBA would give NASA that option, just as Comsat allowed NASA to hand off communications satellites in the 1960's. The Mars folk would be glad to have NASA directed to forget about the Moon :-)

The key is to find a way to slip a LBA in as a amendment, perhaps also directing NASA to focus on Mars. It could get a bit of seed funding to start, say $300 million a year for 5 years. You could fund a lot of robotic missions with that type of funding. Missions that could prove the existence of key lunar resources and test ISRU technologies. Then use its bonding authority with the new knowledge to start commercial joint ventures. I also would prefer to headquarter it in San Jose (but NOT at NASA Ames...)and put someone like Dr. Pete Worden in charge. The let economics take its course to start an industry.

Tom