Moon Landing 50th Anniversary
Half a century has passed since Neal Armstrong stepped onto the Sea of Tranquility. He was the first human to set foot on another world. It was "one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind." Undoubtedly, but the Apollo program ended only a few years later, in 1972, and it hasn't been equalled in all the years since. Despite vastly improved technology, manned missions to the moon ceased. The lack of a major followup--a lunar colony or mission to Mars--is an indictment of the present system. Many people thought the Apollo program was too costly. Yet in addition to the vast waste in Vietnam and Iraq, much more is spent on alcohol, tobacco and junk food than on space.
I recall watching the moon landing on TV. They didn't show much though the words "Armstrong on moon" appeared on the screen. I noticed that after coverage of the event was over, it was "business as usual" elsewhere. There were big clashes in the Mideast. As I learned much later, Israel exploited world focus on the landing to carry out air raids on Egypt.
Note, I received the publication late in 1969.
Below is my source for Israel's use of the moon landing as a diversion. While the rest of the world saw Apollo 11 as a triumph for all of mankind, Israel considered it a mere cover for attack operations.
posted by starman at 3:32 AM
21 Comments:
The Apollo program should have been continued. Unfortunately, the U.S. has wasted enormous amounts of money on unnecessary wars in places like Vietnam and Iraq.
Couldn't agree more that Vietnam and Iraq were an enormous waste of money. With half of the money blown in Vietnam, the US probably could've built a moon colony and landed astronauts on Mars or Mercury.
Btw do you have any memorabilia dating to the time of the Apollo program? Besides what I just posted, I still have some old newsclips, about the later Apollo missions.
July 13, 2019
I don't have any newsclips on the Apollo program. I wish that I had kept the newspapers with the articles on the landings. You're right; much of the money wasted on those worthless wars could have been used for space exploration. For example, it could have been spent for developing more advanced types of propulsion for spaceships.
I didn't begin cutting and saving newsclips until 1970. The first ones I saved were about astronomy, for example the monthly columns by Prof. Charles H. Smiley. (Do you remember astronomical features in your newspaper back then?)
I started keeping news stories about space from about 1972 on (and politics from about 1973 on). I still have many from the late '70s and early '80s. I've posted some here, about the Mideast.
July 13, 2019
I remember some articles about astronomy. I wish that I had kept them. It's good that you kept those news stories.
I just discovered I have the last "Planets and Stars" column of Prof. Charles H. Smiley--that of August 1977. Prof. Smiley passed away late in July 1977.
July 14, 2019
It's important to keep items like that. I'm sure that Prof. Smiley's column was very informative and had good insights.
Yes, it was often interesting and informative. By any chance do you remember the opposition of Mars in 1971? Prof. Smiley did more than mention it, he went into some detail about the exact distance of Mars at nearest approach etc.
I don't recall if I saw Mercury for the first time (in March 1972) on the basis of his information. There was another, briefer feature back then--"Connecticut Skies"--by (IIRC) Bailey R. Frank.
July 14, 2019
I remember hearing about it. As we know, probes sent to Mars have revealed a substantial amount of information about that planet. There has been speculation that it was inhabited a long time ago. It's good that you got plenty of astronomical data from reading the writings of Professor Smiley.
Yes our knowledge of Mars has increased tremendously since 1964, when Mariner 4 blasted off. It reached Mars around July 1965 and sent back the first pictures. Later Viking, Spirit, Opportunity etc missions added greatly to our knowledge. But, as I've said before, Earthlike exoplanets should have a higher priority for research than Mars--a small planet with no real chance of life evolving far if it arose at all.
But getting back to the moon, did you hear that in September India will send a probe to the lunar south polar area?
July 15, 2019
Yes, I heard about the probe that India will be sending to the moon. India is making a substantial amount of progress in aerospace technology.
India sent an unmanned probe to Mars. It went into orbit around Mars in September of 2014.
It would be interesting if the Indian lander discovers water in the south polar area. Water may enable humans and their plants to survive on the moon. I doubt India could afford to build a lunar colony though. Any thoughts?
Btw did you ever see the craters in the southern area of the moon? I seem to recall your family had a telescope.
July 15, 2019
We saw some craters in the southern part of the moon. I don't think that India could afford a colony on the moon or Mars in the near future. However, I think that China could afford to colonize the moon or Mars. I'm anxious to see if the Indian probe finds water in the south polar lunar area.
Yes, China may be able to afford a manned lunar mission or even a lunar colony. I don't think any nation, though, can afford a colony on Mars.
There's a good chance water will be found near the lunar south pole. Even the polar areas of Mercury have water even though that planet is closer to the sun.
July 16, 2019
From what I've read, Venus is actually hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun. At some point, colonies might be established on Mars, but if so, it would not be in the near future. One of the problems with colonizing Mars is the distance from Earth. It would take a substantial amount of time to ship supplies to Mars. If much more advanced propulsion systems are developed at some point in the future, then it could be feasible to colonize that planet.
True, colonizing Mars with current technology may not be feasible. Btw note what I added to this post--what do you think?
July 16, 2019
Hi Neal,
I was referring to the pic showing part of a page, added to this blog post we've been commenting on. What do you think of that, and my remarks there?
July 16, 2019
I think that Israel was obviously using the Apollo landing to divert attention from the battle. Israel did not want the world to know that the Arabs had performed better than what they done in the 1967 war. However, few Americans are aware of that.
Thanks for the comment Neal. :) I don't think it was very ethical to use the Apollo mission as a cover for massive air raids. The Israelis did something similar in October 1956. They took advantage of Russia's preoccupation with Hungary and America's focus on an election campaign to launch a war on Egypt.
July 17, 2019
You're welcome, Tim. I agree; that was an unethical thing that Israel did. Using distractions has been a common tactic for them.
Post a Comment
<< Home