by Cherian_Abraham on 7/20/12, 12:09 PM with 88 comments
by russell on 7/20/12, 4:47 PM
I worked at MIT Instrumentation Lab on a compiler for the guidance software for the moon missions. My contribution was insignificant, but I am still proud to have been part of it. My only regret was that I never made it to Florida to watch a Saturn V take off.
by sethg on 7/20/12, 1:13 PM
by saalweachter on 7/20/12, 6:14 PM
The last volume he purchased was August 1969.
In my imagination, after the moon landing, he bought one more issue, and it just didn't work anymore. Science fiction had become science fact, and he had no need for any more fiction.
I wonder how he felt later, after we left the moon for the last time and never went back.
by Kellster on 7/20/12, 2:41 PM
"Thank you Mr. President. It's a great honor and privilege for us to be here representing not only the United States but men of peace of all nations, men with interests and a curiosity and men with a vision for the future."
Fucking awesome.
by DanielBMarkham on 7/20/12, 1:12 PM
Not the way it worked out.
by ErrantX on 7/20/12, 1:51 PM
Dad has always talked about his memories of 1969 (he would have been a teenager at the time) and the excitement of it.
I feel like going back after so long will feel almost as momentous for some of my generation. Although possibly not the the majority, which is a little sad.
by 01Michael10 on 7/20/12, 1:41 PM
by totalforge on 7/20/12, 3:47 PM
by barking on 7/20/12, 12:25 PM
by ChuckMcM on 7/20/12, 6:07 PM
Today, the last remaining challenge of landing on the moon, is carrying enough fuel for a trans-lunar injection orbit into orbit, and then for the lander to land on the moon itself.
With modern launch vehicles, it is straight-forward to launch a moon landing mission as three components (command module, lander, and engine/fuel. And link them together in orbit. However, there is a significant penalty to not launching all at once into the correct earth orbit to later elongate into a trans lunar orbit. So a 'modern' mission actually would need two loads of fuel in orbit, one to move the whole assembly into a prepatory orbit, and then one to move from that orbit to the moon.
If we have on-orbit refueling then you manage a depot of fuel for the second step, and the sequence becomes launch lander, dock it with a tug. Launch command module, attach that to the tug. Move the tug (with its command and lander modules) into the same ecliptic as the moon's orbit. Then refuel, and then use the tug to move you to the moon.
By re-using the tug multiple times the costs drop dramatically. (like $100M every time you re-use it, that is a tug you didn't launch from earth).
People want on-orbit refueling so that we can have longer lived satellites. (there are perfectly serviceable communication satellites in 'dead' orbits because they no longer have the fuel for station keeping.)
Once we get that capability it won't be a question of 'will' to get to the moon, it will simply be a question of money. And there is enough disposable income amongst the young billionaires of the world that getting the money won't be an issue either.
by tocomment on 7/20/12, 1:21 PM
[1] http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/prelim_water_r...
by defen on 7/20/12, 7:17 PM
Interesting writeup of the various alarms (beeps) that are going off: http://klabs.org/history/apollo_11_alarms/eyles_2004/eyles_2...
At 3:15 you can hear Charlie Duke say "60 seconds" - that's how much time they have until they run out of fuel and need to abort the landing.
by rbanffy on 7/20/12, 7:12 PM
3 years ago, I took my laptop to the terrace atop the building I worked in and listened as the sun fell behind the buildings. I was one year old at the time of the actual landing and I'm glad I could join in, even if with a 40 year delay.
by cafard on 7/20/12, 1:15 PM
by Rastafarian on 7/21/12, 1:56 AM
by jballanc on 7/20/12, 5:33 PM
by mahasvin on 7/21/12, 7:48 AM
by tinyjoe on 7/20/12, 10:57 PM
by naturalethic on 7/20/12, 8:30 PM
by huhtenberg on 7/20/12, 6:33 PM
:)