Agreed - it was an achievement of U.S. engineers, industrialists and scientists, not of humanity in general.
History has proven it unsustainable, but stunt is too cavalier a word. Its indirect economic, political and psychological significance won’t be understood for centuries.
Probes can’t tell you what it’s like to be on the moon.
Also remember that rocket research really started in 1914 and not the late 50’s. with the Russkies or even early 40’s with the V2. In that respect, it took 55 years to reach the moon.
And you know this because…you have a time machine?!?
So it’s important because we now have a subjective record of human observation? Let’s break this down a bit. Let’s say Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong decided to have a bit of fun with us, and give us an account of the moon experience that was not quite accurate. Maybe instead of calling it “magnificent desolation” and playing it up as bizarre and strange, they could say it was surprisingly comfortingly familiar, like walking the Cape Cod dunes at night.
Would there be any difference, whatsoever, on anything about the human experience? Given that only a handful of people on the planet would even have anywhere to start suspecting that they were making that description up out of whole cloth, I really don’t think it woud matter. And if a completely fabricated description of something cannot be distinguished from the real thing, how much can that description possibly matter?
In any case, a probe can’t tell you what it is like to be shrunk down to one micron and injected into human veins to travel around in a tiny submarine. Doesn’t mean that is automatically worth doing.
No, just making a reasonable inference from how similar events in the distant past have been interpreted.
Everything you said applies to any kind of personal account whatsoever, so unless you attach zero value to all such accounts, the accounts of the astronauts are as valuable as, say, Columbus’s journals.
Human beings can’t be shrunken to one micron, so the scenario is meaningless.
Based on your earlier post, you seem to be aligning with the position that “there is so much that could be done here on earth,” i.e. a disagreement based on priorities. Fair enough, but so many resources are spent on things far less productive or beneficial than space exploration that the argument turns on itself.
I don’t get the “over” achievement angle. It’s not like humanity isn’t going to get a job at Wal*Mart for being overqualified.
“Well, I see you have a Master’s Degree and you went to the moon. Why are you applying for the greeter position?”
Times are tough, man.
History shows that human innovation is valued at about the point where it becomes economically useful. History doesn’t have a lot of accolades for the anonymous Viking who sailed to Vinland and decided it wasn’t really too much more interesting than the farmland back home. But we have a lot to say about Columbus, who hung out here when conditions were ripe to spin the New World into a profitable commercial venture. Hero’s engine was a neat trick, but steam power really took off when global economic conditions made it useful for commercial mass production.
Early exploration is usually a side note in the history books. What matters is not really human discovery, neat as it is, but the human ability to put our discoveries to use improving the human condition. And we are a long, long ways from putting manned space travel to any direct use.
I guess I don’t really find Columbus’s journals all that interesting, beyond their value as a historical curiosity. Now the structures and systems of the economy that allowed Western Europe to exploit the New World and shape modern history? Sure, that is interesting. But I’m not convinced Columbus’s personal musings- which were usually pretty inaccurate and bizarre anyways- have any real effect on humanity.
I do kind of have that position, but that’s not really what I’m going for here. My point is more that humanity is capable of a hell of a lot when we combine money with political will. The moon landing is one of the notable instances in recent history where we decided to get our shit together and do something cool, and that makes it interesting. but it’s not like we pulled off some completely impossible stunt. We could do plenty of things tomorrow with an even greater impact if we put our minds to it.
I don’t. In fact point was that it wasn’t needed. I was responding to the OP’s ‘overreaching’ comments, and others I’ve heard regarding the onboard computers being big calculators and the big computer at Johnson Space Center being the size of a warehouse with the capacity of a ZX81.
panache45, your dad was making the TI calculators, my dad was in Mission Control using them with gratitude. 
Hyperelastic, all of mankind’s great achievements have been by a tiny bunch of cutting-edge adventurers, often from a single nationality. Despite your aiming for exclusivity, however, rumour has it that Americans are also members of the human race.
Thinking about this; how much has manned spaceflight really advanced since Apollo? According to Wikipedia, development of the shuttle began in 1969 and the first orbital test flight was in 1981, and we’ve been flying those same craft since then and only recently retired them.
Russia is still using Soyuz capsules and returning to Earth by simply falling until there’s enough atmosphere for a chute. And it appears that the U.S. may be going back to that.
How much have spacesuits advanced? How often do we even use spacesuits anymore?
People talk about how primitive Apollo was, but it strikes me that we haven’t come a lot farther. Certainly computing power is faster and more compact, and I suppose materials science has made some contributions, but are we really all that much farther along?
Okay, they don’t drink Tang and eat dinner out of toothpaste tubes anymore (do they?). I suppose those are advancements.
Robotics have improved remarkably, but that’s not manned flight.
Oops: I wrote Panache45 when I meant David42. Sorry.
Well put. We are stalled, becase chemical-fueled rockets can only take us so far.
ntil we develop nuclear rockets, everything we do will be limited to orbital flights and (maybe) a few lunar trips.
AS for space “tourism”-that’s a big laugh-wait till Branson has his first (fatal) accident..all of a sudden, going into space won’t be so cool.:eek:
Branson isn’t making orbital flights which is exponentially more dangerous than a shuttle launch or moon landing.
we’ve been experimenting with rocket launched vehicles that can maneuver in orbit and return. Essentially they are mini space shuttles that sit on top of the rocket and not next to it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Shuttle makes a comeback.
But how much of an advancement is that really? Reentry methods are just one detail and choice of reentry method is about how you return, not how you get somewhere interesting.
In any case, my point is that people talk about Apollo using primitive technology, when really, if we tried to do the same thing again today, we’d probably use pretty similar technology.
It wasn’t primitive. It wasn’t an “over-achievement”. It just seems that way to people born later (as opposed to those of us who lived through it) because we haven’t done anything comparable in decades. The reasons we haven’t done anything comparable are more political than technological. A moon program today would be as difficult and expensive as it was in the sixties.
The advancement is the realization that a lot of the danger is in the rocket(s). Put them behind you and use the orbiting vehicle for orbiting and re-entry. It’s kind of like moving the canards back to the tail in airplanes. It’s a natural progression based on what worked and what didn’t.
You’re right. Not only would it be just as difficult we made it so by tossing out all the plans for the original equipment. Certainly the control systems and computers would be much better today. It would probably look similar on the outside but polished on the inside with 21st century improvements just as aircraft look similar today but are highly advanced versions of 1960’s technology.
Over-achievement? Nah. Considering the advancements made since 1969, including literal Star Trek phones in everyone’s pocket, affordable solar power, internet for the masses, and plenty of others, it isn’t wildly out of context.
The ~'20’s might have been more breathtaking. Radiation, relativity, atomic theroy- those were astounding achievements.
Don’t tell me, tell DrFidelius!
The Curies got their Noble prize in 1903 and Einstein’s Relativity paper was published in 1905. You probably could say that QM (not “atomic theory”) was developed mostly in the 20s.
Einstein’s Special Relativity paper was in 1905. General relativity was in the late teens, which is close enough for the twiddle.
Back to the OP, even if the Apollo program had no other practical effect, it did serve to fill a very fundamental human need to show up the other guy. Competing with the Russians through a manned space program that doesn’t accomplish anything is a lot more productive than competing with them through a war that devastates the planet. And human nature being what it is, I think it’s inevitable that we would have found ourselves directly competing against the Russians in some arena or another. All to the good that we were able to do it peacefully.