If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Life.com)   45 years ago, at 9:32 AM EDT, Apollo 11 lifted off carrying Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins to the moon. And that wasn't just a euphemism for spousal abuse, as it had been in the past   (life.time.com) divider line 51
    More: Hero, frames per seconds, distillates, Nikon, field of view, Neil Armstrong, Ralph Morse  
•       •       •

579 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jul 2014 at 9:32 AM (8 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-16 09:05:29 AM
If you watch our space program backwards, it's pretty impressive. (I think that was Neil deGrasse Tyson)
 
2014-07-16 09:14:03 AM
I was not quite five and watching as my mother was on her way home from the hospital with my new youngest sister(b.14th).

/also had the entire batch Gulf space stuff; books, figurines, etc.
 
2014-07-16 09:16:23 AM
I remember watching that on live tv at the time. As a child I found it very exciting and dreamed of a future that would include going to the moon a regular thing for the space program. Now the space program has regressed to the point where we can't even go to the moon.
 
2014-07-16 09:40:29 AM
I'm kind of sad I missed a real space program in my lifetime.

All we've had in the past 30 years is the shuttle, which was like the mini-van of space travel.
 
2014-07-16 09:43:10 AM
Fark yes.
 
2014-07-16 09:50:15 AM
Here's the deslided version of Life magazine's August 11, 1969 issue commemorating the Apollo 11 mission.
 
2014-07-16 09:50:39 AM

gremlin1: I remember watching that on live tv at the time. As a child I found it very exciting and dreamed of a future that would include going to the moon a regular thing for the space program. Now the space program has regressed to the point where we can't even go to the moon.


I agree about being disappointed in our progress in the intermediate decades, but the future isn't so bad.

We will have this new heavy launch vehicle soon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

The Shuttle was a well-intentioned failure, too expensive, too high-maintenance, too Frankensteined for multiple applications to succeed. And two failures in 135 launches is inexcusable.

And the International Space Station is nothing to sneeze at, even though it's "only" in low Earth orbit.

But that's manned flight. Learning how to live in space is important if we want to ever have a long-term presence exploring. And humans in space is an important inspiration. But it's only one way to accomplish our goals in space. Robotics has been amazing in the last few decades. We're mapping every body in the Solar System. The Mars rovers have performed amazingly well. Hubble, Chandra, Kepler -- all have made valuable contributions to science.

Yeah, I want more people in space too, but we haven't exactly crawled back into caves since the end of the Apollo program.
 
2014-07-16 10:08:32 AM
There is no 'living in space'. Everything about us has evolved to exist in a low radiation, moderate gravity environment. Even short periods of time in space are terrible for our bodies. Right now there isn't much to do in space besides 'be in space because it is cool'. Robots are better and cheaper. Wait another 50 years and see what science has discovered that change the equation.
 
2014-07-16 10:19:53 AM
Rub-a-dub-dub, Three men in a...
 
2014-07-16 10:24:17 AM
'Murica!
 
2014-07-16 10:28:54 AM

FirstNationalBastard: I'm kind of sad I missed a real space program in my lifetime.


We've got a robot the size of a small car rolling around Mars, shooting it with a laser, and proving that conditions that would sustain life existed there in the past.

No, it's not a person. We don't need to feed it, water it, or make concessions so it can breathe and poop. But it's part of a real space program.
 
2014-07-16 10:37:40 AM

FirstNationalBastard: I'm kind of sad I missed a real space program in my lifetime.

All we've had in the past 30 years is the shuttle, which was like the mini-van of space travel.


Well duh! Back then, we had the "Mad Men" of space travel: cigar-chompin', test pilotin', Hai Karate wearin' badasses in buzzcuts who looked at a huge missile filled with enough fuel to become a small A-Bomb and they said "Where do I strap in?".

The astronaut corps during the shuttle era was as exiting as your math teacher going into space with your social studies teacher.
 
2014-07-16 10:39:22 AM
It's a shame we don't have leaders today who are as capable as their forefathers.
With all the advancements we've made in computers and materials, this sort of thing should be child's play.

Yet we can barely manage to keep an orbital station going.
 
2014-07-16 10:41:13 AM

madgonad: There is no 'living in space'. Everything about us has evolved to exist in a low radiation, moderate gravity environment. Even short periods of time in space are terrible for our bodies. Right now there isn't much to do in space besides 'be in space because it is cool'. Robots are better and cheaper. Wait another 50 years and see what science has discovered that change the equation.


You do it because it is hard. And we will learn things in doing so.
 
2014-07-16 10:42:31 AM

way south: It's a shame we don't have leaders today who are as capable as their forefathers.
With all the advancements we've made in computers and materials, this sort of thing should be child's play.

Yet we can barely manage to keep an orbital station going.


It's because the political situation isn't the same anymore.  We didn't go to the moon to advance science, we went to the moon to give the USSR the middle finger.  What we need is a new space race, perhaps China can play this time.
 
2014-07-16 10:42:41 AM
StopLurkListen:

The Shuttle was a well-intentioned failure, too expensive, too high-maintenance, too Frankensteined for multiple applications to succeed. And two failures in 135 launches is inexcusable.

What doomed the Shuttle was back in the design phase, because the military INSISTED on certain elements in order for it to be used at it's proposed launch site in California.

By the time Columbia first flew, the alleged Shuttle pad in CA was built but never used. It became known as the "world's largest owl's nest".

And the Shuttle was stuck with a castrated design that never really reached it's full potential, thanks to the Military-Industrial Complex.
 
2014-07-16 10:43:25 AM
I don't remember watching the Apollo 11 coverage (though I must have, since I was always into planes
and spaceships), but I do remember obsessively listening to a 45 record of Walter Cronkite narrating the
highlights of the mission all through kindergarten.
 
2014-07-16 10:47:22 AM
One of these days, subby. One of these days ...
 
2014-07-16 10:52:16 AM
Interesting fact. The cost of the whole Apollo program, including R&D etc was $100,000,000,000 in todays money if you account for inflation.

This is a lot of money.

At the height of the Iraq war, the USA was spending $25,000,000,000 PER MONTH (including post duty medical car etc)

This means we could have redeveloped the craft from scratch, built ALL the missions and flown them EVERY FOUR MONTHS.

That`s about 120 moon missions, even with some failures. Imagine what 120 moon capable launches could have done

But of course it`s impossible to go now, there just isn`t the money...
 
2014-07-16 10:56:21 AM
I was not quite one year old when this happened, so I really don't remember any of it. But I had the good fortune to work at Kennedy Space Center for two years (from 2008 - 2010). It's a fantastically cool place to work.

At the Saturn V Center, they have a restored Saturn V rocket (mounted laying on its side), and it's just unbelievably massive. It is twice as tall as the Space Shuttle stack (including the external tank), and had a much greater payload capacity.
 
2014-07-16 11:00:05 AM

madgonad: There is no 'living in space'. Everything about us has evolved to exist in a low radiation, moderate gravity environment. Even short periods of time in space are terrible for our bodies. Right now there isn't much to do in space besides 'be in space because it is cool'. Robots are better and cheaper. Wait another 50 years and see what science has discovered that change the equation.


You wouldn't happen to be really, really scared of dying, would you?
 
2014-07-16 11:03:18 AM
You mean they built a soundstage, right Subs?
 
2014-07-16 11:03:21 AM

dready zim: That`s about 120 moon missions, even with some failures. Imagine what 120 moon capable launches could have done


A sad state of affairs. Makes me kinda stabby.
 
2014-07-16 11:08:55 AM

TV's Vinnie: StopLurkListen:

The Shuttle was a well-intentioned failure, too expensive, too high-maintenance, too Frankensteined for multiple applications to succeed. And two failures in 135 launches is inexcusable.

What doomed the Shuttle was back in the design phase, because the military INSISTED on certain elements in order for it to be used at it's proposed launch site in California.

By the time Columbia first flew, the alleged Shuttle pad in CA was built but never used. It became known as the "world's largest owl's nest".

And the Shuttle was stuck with a castrated design that never really reached it's full potential, thanks to the Military-Industrial Complex.


Yeah, the Shuttle was a bit of an albatross for NASA. I really wished they would have continued developing the Saturn hardware with a focus on increasing reliability and reducing cost with new materials and construction methods. Can you imagine the stuff we could have done the last 30 years if we had had the payload of a Saturn V to play with? You could have launched the space station into orbit with Skylab sized modules, reducing the number of flights drastically (and along with it cost, most likely because multiple smaller launches tend to cost more than one big one, plus you have a lot more in-orbit assembly time with smaller modules, and spacewalks aren't cheap). Plus a Saturn launched space telescope wouldn't be limited to the size of the Shuttle cargo bay, meaning you could theoretically build one with a much larger mirror for better light gathering (of course, you'd still be somewhat limited  by mirror tech).

Hopefully things will get back on track when the SLS gives us some real heavy lifting capability.
 
2014-07-16 11:19:05 AM
they slipped the surly bonds of earth and punched the face of god...
 
2014-07-16 11:32:47 AM

nekom: way south: It's a shame we don't have leaders today who are as capable as their forefathers.
With all the advancements we've made in computers and materials, this sort of thing should be child's play.

Yet we can barely manage to keep an orbital station going.

It's because the political situation isn't the same anymore.  We didn't go to the moon to advance science, we went to the moon to give the USSR the middle finger.  What we need is a new space race, perhaps China can play this time.




That's the short version of it, but to be specific they did it for the votes.
Falling behind the Russians was a sign of political weakness in the Cold War era. Congress was looking for ways to prove the superiority of the west, and Apollo (among other things) was a convenient way to do so.

Today we are perfectly fine with falling behind other nations. If China or Russia began going to the moon or beyond, we'd probably sit and watch or ask for a back seat ticket. We no longer fight to be the leading super power we wanted to be in the fifties and sixties.

That's why I'd call out our leadership for being incapable of leading.
Maybe the real fault is ours tho. If we made science and exploration a prime voting issue, cutting nasa funds for social payouts or wars would be as politically suicidal as consorting with communists used to be.

It would be the voters asking "how's that space program going?" At the start of every debate.
Those without an answer would have been culled from the system, and we wouldn't need fear to drive exploration as a sideshow.
 
2014-07-16 11:40:31 AM

neversubmit: Rub-a-dub-dub, Three men in a...


DivorceWar Veteran: 'Murica!


This made me chuckle.
 
2014-07-16 11:54:51 AM

way south: We no longer fight to be the leading super power we wanted to be in the fifties and sixties.


That's because fighting to be that superpower led to the seventies, and that's a different conversation.

But the reason we backed off on space is really simple. Broadly speaking, there are two types of people in America: moonbats and troglodytes. The moonbats think that we can solve every social problem known to man, if we'd only just throw a little more money at it. They turned against the space program because of the cost, because sending someone to the moon wasn't as important to them as feeding the hungry.

The troglodytes, by and large, don't have a problem with anyone going hungry. What they don't like, though, is paying taxes. They pretty much consider that to be theft by the government. They also turned against the space program because of the cost, because sending someone to the moon wasn't as important to them as having a few extra nickels in their pocket each week.

Shouldn't someone have shown leadership? Sure. The trouble is, "leadership" in America means something that will fit on a bumper sticker. You can accomplish that. "Before this decade is out" works. It's a goal. "I'd like you to consider the residual benefits of manned spaceflight" doesn't. It's a terrible bumper sticker. Because of that, anyone capable of explaining whatever benefits space exploration may provide doesn't get to matter, because they will be drowned out by the guy saying "Now, more than ever" or "It's Morning Again in America" or "It's the Economy, Stupid" or "Hope".
 
2014-07-16 11:56:46 AM
 
2014-07-16 12:04:34 PM
the price of colonizing space will be the earth.

losing that will be the only thing that will wake us up.

at least we will learn about terraforming by doing it in reverse at home.
 
2014-07-16 12:15:02 PM
One misconception, space travel is not meant to ease the population pressure on earth. Space travel is so that when we completely fark up this planet and kill everyone here, we won`t have killed off *all* the humans or technological knowledge.

Even if just 500 people make a colony out there that can support itself then we will be OK (maybe)

many 500 person colonies would be better.
 
2014-07-16 12:49:11 PM
Nice try subby.

45 years ago, at 9:32 AM EDT, Apollo 11 lifted off carrying Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins to the moon, allegedly.

FTFY.  We all know that the studio used was burned down in Waco, Tx back in the 90's so the proof would be gone.
 
2014-07-16 01:03:08 PM
*deep, self-satisfied sniff*

Just a reminder of what the score is four-and-a-half decades later:
i.imgur.com
/'Merica.
 
2014-07-16 01:05:10 PM

JacksonBryan: Nice try subby.

45 years ago, at 9:32 AM EDT, Apollo 11 lifted off carrying Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins to the moon, allegedly.

FTFY.  We all know that the studio used was burned down in Waco, Tx back in the 90's so the proof would be gone.


Oh, I see where you are confused... You're thinking of the Death Star blowing up Alderaan in the documentary Star Trek.
 
2014-07-16 01:27:06 PM

DivorceWar Veteran: JacksonBryan: Nice try subby.

45 years ago, at 9:32 AM EDT, Apollo 11 lifted off carrying Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins to the moon, allegedly.

FTFY.  We all know that the studio used was burned down in Waco, Tx back in the 90's so the proof would be gone.

Oh, I see where you are confused... You're thinking of the Death Star blowing up Alderaan in the documentary Star Trek.


Oh, great...your one of those.

/actually, I suck at this trolling game.
//you're
 
2014-07-16 01:35:47 PM

JacksonBryan: /actually, I suck at this trolling game.


No, no, give yourself a little credit. The concept of the raid on the Koresh compound being a false flag to hide evidence of the faked moon landing is very, very solid. Mind if I play with it some? I have been known to post on conspiracy theory websites, and I think that's a really original, solid foundation for some prime Derp.
 
2014-07-16 01:48:52 PM

Gonz: way south: We no longer fight to be the leading super power we wanted to be in the fifties and sixties.

That's because fighting to be that superpower led to the seventies, and that's a different conversation.

But the reason we backed off on space is really simple. Broadly speaking, there are two types of people in America: moonbats and troglodytes. The moonbats think that we can solve every social problem known to man, if we'd only just throw a little more money at it. They turned against the space program because of the cost, because sending someone to the moon wasn't as important to them as feeding the hungry.

The troglodytes, by and large, don't have a problem with anyone going hungry. What they don't like, though, is paying taxes. They pretty much consider that to be theft by the government. They also turned against the space program because of the cost, because sending someone to the moon wasn't as important to them as having a few extra nickels in their pocket each week.

Shouldn't someone have shown leadership? Sure. The trouble is, "leadership" in America means something that will fit on a bumper sticker. You can accomplish that. "Before this decade is out" works. It's a goal. "I'd like you to consider the residual benefits of manned spaceflight" doesn't. It's a terrible bumper sticker. Because of that, anyone capable of explaining whatever benefits space exploration may provide doesn't get to matter, because they will be drowned out by the guy saying "Now, more than ever" or "It's Morning Again in America" or "It's the Economy, Stupid" or "Hope".




Both extremes aren't anything new. They are a minority of a mainstream public that is mostly left in the dark about where slogans come from. They are the ones who turn up to political meetings, but they've never been a source of direction.

It takes just a few minutes to explain how advancing technology makes feeding people easier, and how pushing the frontier puts money in your pocket. Much of the tech boom in the eighties was a direct response to half a million Apollo employees taking their skills back to the workforce. The main reason we can Still be a breadbasket in a drought is because of space surveillance.
Bother sides could get what they want.

Of course that sort of talk won't win any elections. What we need for that are secure political seats, and security comes from a divided voter base. Right now we've been cut apart so neatly, politicians can promise the moon with no fear of anyone calling them to account when they fail to deliver. Everyone's so afraid of their side losing, they've lost sight if what's been lost.

A true leader can pull people together.
A politician knows how to split them apart.
 
2014-07-16 02:55:41 PM

http://wechoosethemoon.org/



upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-07-16 03:45:51 PM

dready zim: One misconception, space travel is not meant to ease the population pressure on earth. Space travel is so that when we completely fark up this planet and kill everyone here, we won`t have killed off *all* the humans or technological knowledge.


True, but there could be spin-off technologies from space travel which would help to reduce everyone else's environmental footprint on earth (better solar cells, hydroponics, waste-water treatment, etc). There would be more direct benefits once the space program gets around to mining asteroids for useful metals (e.g. a cheap source of platinum would make hydrogen fuel cells much more practical).
 
2014-07-16 04:07:21 PM

Kittypie070: http://wechoosethemoon.org/

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x667]



That's one small step for man --
25.media.tumblr.com
--one giant leap for mankind.
 
2014-07-16 04:23:14 PM

StopLurkListen: Kittypie070: http://wechoosethemoon.org/

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x667]


That's one small step for man --
[25.media.tumblr.com image 374x211]
--one giant leap for mankind.


They really should have had the the break in happen at "One small step for" and then have the footage resume at "man" to make it look like Armstrong actually said "one small step for A man" but no one remembers because of the interruption. Wasted opportunity to "answer" a long standing historical question.
 
2014-07-16 04:51:46 PM

theorellior: madgonad: There is no 'living in space'. Everything about us has evolved to exist in a low radiation, moderate gravity environment. Even short periods of time in space are terrible for our bodies. Right now there isn't much to do in space besides 'be in space because it is cool'. Robots are better and cheaper. Wait another 50 years and see what science has discovered that change the equation.

You wouldn't happen to be really, really scared of dying, would you?


Nah, I'm of a similar opinion - manned space exploration is awesome, except for our squishy, demanding biochemistry which, at our current level of technical expertise, makes anything short of a Lunar holiday a terribly unhealthy affair. Let's make it our clear focus sending out legions of probes and drones (given that we have capabilities that the 1960's certainly didn't), and build our science and technical expertise that way. One we get a few test platforms that demonstrate some far better mastery of rad shielding, power generation, long-term manufacturing of foodstuff and waste-recycling, etc, then we should send up some bodies.

It's ok to want manned exploration; I do too. But I think as part of that eventual goal, efforts and public relations should focus on the benefits of un-manned, zero-risk machines to explore the system (including proof-of-concept life support technologies that we'll eventually need) in the here-and-now. Like LOTS of probes. Let's get 'em up there!

tl;dr I don't think that's a He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Apostrophied comment. :)
 
2014-07-16 05:05:54 PM

ThreadSinger: theorellior: madgonad: There is no 'living in space'. Everything about us has evolved to exist in a low radiation, moderate gravity environment. Even short periods of time in space are terrible for our bodies. Right now there isn't much to do in space besides 'be in space because it is cool'. Robots are better and cheaper. Wait another 50 years and see what science has discovered that change the equation.

You wouldn't happen to be really, really scared of dying, would you?


Nah, I'm of a similar opinion - manned space exploration is awesome, except for our squishy, demanding biochemistry which, at our current level of technical expertise, makes anything short of a Lunar holiday a terribly unhealthy affair. Let's make it our clear focus sending out legions of probes and drones (given that we have capabilities that the 1960's certainly didn't), and build our science and technical expertise that way. One we get a few test platforms that demonstrate some far better mastery of rad shielding, power generation, long-term manufacturing of foodstuff and waste-recycling, etc, then we should send up some bodies.

It's ok to want manned exploration; I do too. But I think as part of that eventual goal, efforts and public relations should focus on the benefits of un-manned, zero-risk machines to explore the system (including proof-of-concept life support technologies that we'll eventually need) in the here-and-now. Like LOTS of probes. Let's get 'em up there!

tl;dr I don't think that's a He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Apostrophied comment. :)


I like you :3
 
2014-07-16 05:11:32 PM

StopLurkListen: Kittypie070: http://wechoosethemoon.org/

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x667]


That's one small step for man --
[25.media.tumblr.com image 374x211]
--one giant leap for mankind.


That makes me wanna run out to a secondhand shop and buy one.

My gods, are any old portable B/W TVs still out there??
 
2014-07-16 06:40:57 PM

mutterfark: I was not quite five and watching as my mother was on her way home from the hospital with my new youngest sister(b.14th).

/also had the entire batch Gulf space stuff; books, figurines, etc.

I used  love putting together those lunar module paper cutouts

 
2014-07-16 08:03:25 PM
Poor Michael Collins.  I'd go farking crazytown bananapants if they told me I was going to the moon but couldn't walk on it.  Yeah, he is the person who was farthest away from any other people in history, but still...I'd strand us all and kill us in that position.

Okay, probably not, but it would eat away at me forever.
 
2014-07-16 09:31:46 PM

Precision Boobery: Poor Michael Collins.  I'd go farking crazytown bananapants if they told me I was going to the moon but couldn't walk on it.  Yeah, he is the person who was farthest away from any other people in history, but still...I'd strand us all and kill us in that position.

Okay, probably not, but it would eat away at me forever.


offsite.com.cy

Michael Collins took this photograph. It's amazing because in it is every person in existence at the time... except Michael Collins
 
2014-07-16 10:07:22 PM

Precision Boobery: Poor Michael Collins.  I'd go farking crazytown bananapants if they told me I was going to the moon but couldn't walk on it.  Yeah, he is the person who was farthest away from any other people in history, but still...I'd strand us all and kill us in that position.

Okay, probably not, but it would eat away at me forever.


That's not even the worst part.

timelifeblog.files.wordpress.com

He's the only one who didn't get a pony growing up. Man's had a hard life.
 
2014-07-16 10:23:50 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Michael Collins took this photograph. It's amazing because in it is every person in existence at the time... except Michael Collins


It's a pity that Selfies hadn't been invented yet. He could have had everyone.
 
2014-07-17 12:25:24 PM
Didn't Alice Kramden make numerous trips to the moon in 1955, courtesy of her husband Ralph?
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report