Yesterday was, according to American space legends the day that Americans put a man on the moon. It has been a story that has been so contesed that at this point in time I have read so much literature about it from both sides to start wondering if it indeed happened. I buy into the scientific reality that it's possible to put man on the moon - I however refuse to believe such can only be achieved when the space becomes contested. Remember Sputnik One and Two? If you don't know anything about the Sputnik Programme then you are not qualified to dispute NASA's story.I dispute the story of the moon landing because my understanding of the space and the Krushchev-Kennedy contest of the 1960s makes it difficult for ordinary people to believe it. My question to optimists has always been that if the US had such sophisticated technology to put man on the moon in 1969 why has been so hard to do it in the preceding 39 years? I mean if I made it to the summit of Mount Everest today, I should be able to do it again next year, or at least try to do it. The US hasn't tried to go there again since the 1970s. Former President George W Bush launched the Mars mission which will be undertaken in 2013, that is if Congress does not cut back on the NASA budget again.
I don't care what other people are saying I just believe that the Yanks never made it to the moon and that they are celebrating a Hollywood staged moon landing with a script to boot. Why would anyone freshly landed on the moon utter words about 'a giant leap for mankind' when they are supposed to say 'wow, ohmygosh!'
I'm cynical, give me faith or tell me something different.
I listened to a conversation by some of my physics lecturers about the moon landing once, and why we haven't been able to go back. They were saying that a big issue is that computing is a lot less solid and reliable now than then. You know - imagine going into space in a space ship controlled by windows... crash, blue screen, and thats the end of you!
ReplyDeleteComputers of that era were a lot lot simpler but also a lot hardier.
Kind of like the old cell phones - remember those old 5210's? The old brick cell phones? Those things never died. They were frumpy and simple, but hardy. And our phones nowadays? So much more complicated, fancy, we can phone and surf the net and listen to music and take pictures etc etc etc. But they last for like a year and a half! Then they are randomly crashing, need shadey undefined "software upgrades", get viruses, etc etc etc.
So thats what they were speaking about.
Also I suspect that another issue is that it would be *epically* expensive, and since then there has just not been enough will to spend so much money on something that seems a bit frivolous.