Did your mother ever mention (semi-seriously, perhaps) “resenting” how you intruded on her chance to join the world in the viewing of the event?
Can’t resist posting this:
Sorry 
What they found on the Moon that they kept secret.
What pisses me off most is that I was born around the time of that event, and will likely die before I see any progress in space exploration.
:mad: :mad: :mad:
There has been plenty of progress in space exploration as can be seen from this timeline. The NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory alone has sent more than 100 missions to every large body in the solar system except for Pluto, as well as a number of asteroids and comets, and of course a number of deep space observatories which have expanded our knowedge of the universe which have challenged or verified a significant amount of theoretical predictions and models in astrophysics.
It is true that none of those spacecraft carried a human crew, nor has a crewed spacecraft yet left the sphere of influence of Earth, but that is because the cost, complexity, and effort of crewed missions is many orders of magnitude greater than robotic missions for little or no scientific benefit. And the more we’ve learned about the space environment and human physiological response to conditions experienced during space habitation and travel, the more we understand how difficult it is to sustain a permanent human presence or engage in long duration crewed missions.
Stranger
On Monday I visited, for the first time, the Kansas Cosmosphere, in Hutchinson Kansas. If you are “into” space you can’t miss it, the most incredible set of artifacts and information on the space program ever.
I was fourteen when Armstrong and Aldrin stepped out onto the moon.
Things that keep me awake at night:
When the moon walkers exited the lunar module, I assume that the oxygen/air also exited the lunar module. So, presumably they must have had canisters with refills. Is this the case? And if so I presume they had strict schedules on who entered and exited when and for how long.
Maybe Stranger can elaborate?
Glad you made it, neighbor. I concur with your enthusiastic assessment.
When we visited a year ago, we had to keep quiet…because a group of schoolchildren was talking to astronauts on the space station!! A female astronaut was answering questions on a big screen, her hair floating around her head.
Despite some of the laments expressed in this thread, there are still exciting things going on in various space programs. Ten years ago, mapping Titan’s methane shoreline like it’s New Jersey…and dozens of great stuff since.
I’m not Stranger, but…
Yes, they had to vent the LM to vacuum before they could open the door. IIRC from various readings, there was still maybe 1 psi left so they had trouble opening the door. Maybe moisture in the valve froze?
There were O2 tanks in the descent stage for cabin oxygen and smaller ones in the ascent stage. They relied on the ones in the DS until they left the Moon.
And very yes, every EVA was planned, scheduled, and rehearsed the best they could. Occasionally, crews would ask for more time on an EVA and if it was okay with Medical and Environmental, sometimes they’d be granted more time by the Flight Director.
If you’re really interested, you might want to read Andrew Chaikin’s “A Man On The Moon” and/or watch the HBO series “From the Earth to the Moon”. There are certainly clips from the latter on YouTube and maybe the occasional full episode. It was a 12 parter.
It isn’t talked about much, but I’ve gathered that Neil Armstrong actually made 3 mistakes during Apollo 11. Before you get out the tar and feathers, let me explain.
- We all know the Eagle landed long and Armstrong had to search for a relatively smooth place to land, which lead to a lot of crossed fingers, holding of breath, and diminishing fuel reports back in Mission Control during the landing. What most people don’t know is that Armstrong did not vent the tunnel between the LM and the CM completely before he separated from Columbia. He figured a little pressure in there would help him separate more cleanly. Sure, it did, but that extra push was more velocity that caused him to have to land long.
B. Armstrong was supposed to cut the engines as soon as the landing probe lights came on. The LM was supposed to freefall the last 1.5 meters or so onto the lunar surface. The shock (at 1/6 G, remember) was supposed to be absorbed by the legs of the LM. They were designed to sort of crush to absorb the shock. Armstrong landed soft, so the legs didn’t crush as they were supposed to, so the distance from the bottom most rung of the ladder to the landing pad was a lot greater than it was supposed to be.
iii. And of course, Armstrong said “That’s a small step for Man” instead of “That’s a small step for a man”.
Okay, I’ve said my piece. Now you can start boiling the tar.
Not a planet now, but I did remember that there is a Pluto mission, I wonder why the graph missed to add The New Horizon’s mission to Pluto, it is in the timeline though.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/
IIUC, it will begin to send data and images 6 months before the closest approach.
One very cool bit of trivia:
Thanks** Jeff**. Maybe I’ll sleep tonight. 
Those MMM toys were GREAT! I still have the Uni-tread with the Space Bubble in the original box sitting on the closet shelf (only out of box one time), but since it’s a factory second, I don’t think anyone will ever want it. 
Be that as it may, I still like us to develop a little temerity. Probes and rovers can only partially prepare us for a journey. At some point we have to make up our minds to go, regardless of practicality.
I’m not going to crucify you for these ‘mistakes’. But he was in charge, he was picked for his ability to make these kind of calls on the spot, and since no one died and the mission was successful, it sounds to me like sour grapes on the part on mission planners.
The Commander did just fine.
The infograph only lists missions managed by JPL. The New Horizons spacecraft was built by Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, which is also managing the mission under contract to NASA.
“Regardless of practicality” is no way to run a circus. The Apollo program, for all of the accomplishments that were made, produced a launch and transportation system which was not capable of doing much more than going to the Moon, and which was too complex and expensive to sustain for other purposes once the “footprints and flag” objective had been satisfied. Far from expanding space exploration, they nearly brought exploration to a standstill with the breathtaking cost. (Amortizing the cost of the entire Apollo moon program over the six lunar landings gives a per mission cost of US$18 billion per landing, which even by large defense and aerospace standards is a hell of a lot of money for a single flight). The results was that when it came time to replace the Saturn V with a new vehicle (which became the Space Launch System colloquially known as the “Shuttle”) there wasn’t enough money to do anything else, like build an infrastructure for the vehicle to fly to, nor a clear path on where to go thence. Unlike the space telecommunication and Earth surveillance programs, which have each turned into multibillion dollar industries which largely sustain themselves as commercial ventures, there is no practical return on investment–either fiscally or in terms of science data per dollar–on crewed space exploration.
The correct path toward human habitation and exploration of interplanetary space is to develop capabilities in an evolutionary fashion such that going to the moon or other planets is a logical consequence rather than a desperate, high risk, all out single mission which costs hundreds of billions of dollars to return the same information that could be gathered by a dozen or so remotely piloted probes and rovers at a cost of a couple billion dollars per unit. Once the capability is developed to extract mineral and chemical supplies from space-based resources, to develop self-sustaining space habitats, and to achieve practical (i.e. non-chemical) high specific impulse propulsion, then it is the time to start talking about crewed exploration of and constructing outposts on other celestial bodies. I don’t say this out of hand; I’ve actually worked on two different reference mission studies for a crewed Mars mission in the near (2033-35 time frame), and the conclusion of both is that the official cost estimates–already in the hundreds of billions of dollars–are likely not conservative–and the hazards and overall assumption of risk is above the threshold of what would be acceptable for a crewed mission.
Stranger