The biggest day in space

Posted: Friday, July 20, 2007 7:56 PM by Alan Boyle

NASA

CLICK IMAGE FOR VIDEO
A 1994 NBC retrospective
looks at the Apollo 11
mission and its legacy.

If you look hard enough, the calendar provides several opportunities to celebrate humanity's push to the final frontier. There's Yuri's Night in April, Space Day in May, and World Space Week in October. But many argue that July 20 – the anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing – should be the biggest space day of the year, since that marks the first time humans ever set foot on another celestial body. Some have even cast it as a holy day with almost religious undertones. Now there’s a petition calling on the president to declare this day an official Space Exploration Day.

The push to create a permanent, non-paid national holiday - something on the order of, say, Flag Day - goes back to 1971, just two years after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made the historic landing. Since then, various presidents have commemorated the achievement periodically, on a year-to-year basis - but it's not yet found a permanent home on the federal calendar (or in the greeting-card shop, for that matter, even though Earth Day has its own category).

Today, the National Space Society made a renewed pitch for the petition. "As NASA turns its efforts back towards the Moon and Mars, it is very appropriate that the nation establishes an official day of celebration for space exploration," the society said in a statement.

It's worth noting that the space-themed observances in April and October highlight Soviet achievements (although April 12 also marks the first flight of the space shuttle). May's Space Day, meanwhile, had its genesis in the timing of President Kennedy's 1961 speech that set America on a path to the moon. July 20 marks the day that America finally followed through on that ambitious goal - and thus has an edge over the other dates, at least as far as the U.S. space effort is concerned.

If you can't send a Space Day card, hold an Evoloterra seder or attend this weekend's NewSpace 2007 conference (with Aldrin in the spotlight tonight), there are still plenty of ways to celebrate Apollo 11's achievements:

Online: My personal favorite is our own "Voyage of the Millennium" audio slide show. You can click through historic images of the space effort, climaxing with Apollo 11 and moving on to the legacy of humanity's greatest voyage. Your guide is astrophotographer Roger Ressmeyer, who personally went through NASA's archive and selected the images that tell the story best. NASA's own 35-year commemoration, which includes a library of documents, still holds up pretty well three years later. And the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is about as authoritative as it gets.
In print: Andrew Chaikin's "A Man on the Moon" is the best popular chronicle of the Apollo missions. For a more writerly approach, you can turn to Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff" or Norman Mailer's "Of a Fire on the Moon." But if it's pictures you want, "Orbit" and "Full Moon" have you covered.
On video: If you're looking for a fictional re-creation of the great adventure, could check out "From the Earth to the Moon," the 12-hour HBO docudrama series that touches upon the early days of the space program, the Apollo 1 tragedy and the moon missions that followed. For a skillful blend of actual Apollo footage, you can turn to "For All Mankind," Al Reinert's 80-minute documentary. That 1989 film inspired what is arguably the best-known dramatic film about the moon effort, "Apollo 13."
At the movies: The marquee event is "In the Shadow of the Moon," a new documentary about the Apollo moon effort due for release in September. For those who remember the glory days, the trailer for the film alone just might bring a tear to your eye. The National Space Society is planning a series of promotional screenings, so now might be a good time to buddy up with the local chapter. If you can get to an Imax 3-D theater, you shouldn't miss "Magnificent Desolation." For filmgoers, it's the next best thing to being there. And NBC's James Oberg had good things to say about "The Wonder of It All," a documentary that is scheduled for special-engagement screenings in August.

What are your own favorite real-life space sagas, in print or on the screen? Pass along your recommendations in the comments section below ... and have a great Evoloterra weekend!

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Unfortunately -- 38 years ago today -- American literally missed out on the true intent of JFK's moon initiative. To him, it wasn't about a race or 'national prestige' for if it were, he would have never asked the Soviets to "JOIN US" in going to the moon as he did before the UN on September 20th, 1963:

"Finally, in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity--in the field of space--there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. Space offers no problems of sovereignty; by resolution of this Assembly, the members of the United Nations have foresworn any claim to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply. Why, therefore, should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries--indeed of all the world--cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries.

All these and other new steps toward peaceful cooperation may be possible. Most of them will require on our part full consultation with our allies--for their interests are as much involved as our own, and we will not make an agreement at their expense. Most of them will require long and careful negotiation. And most of them will require a new approach to the cold war--a desire not to "bury" one's adversary, but to compete in a host of peaceful arenas, in ideas, in production, and ultimately in service to all mankind."

He was a remarkable man and got us threw a time that few others could have!

I don't believe for a single minute that JFK actually believed we could ever make it alone in only eight years and he DELIBERATELY chose an unthinkable goal to spur international cooperation. We may have ultimately proved him wrong but looking back I think we missed-out on a large part of what was intended.

To this day we've built twice as many nuclear aircraft carriers as space shuttles and some 5,000 more nuclear weapons. Yeah, that's exactly what national pride gets you as opposed to the peaceful exploration of space as "FRIENDS". There are few events and goals that could have united us in this way and we do ourselves a disservice to argue that the Soviets were behind us technologically. They in fact hold MANY of the first records and to this day have engineering abilities second to none. Thus, we could have certainly used the help!

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Friday, July 20, 2007 8:29 PM)

yes, make it a national holiday, but one which is optional to observe. The US government employees have toooo many paid holidays as it now stands.

a p garcia (Sent Friday, July 20, 2007 9:40 PM)

The one space project that I believe meant the most to all the people of Earth was Tom Stafford and Alexei Leonov shaking hands on July 17, 1975. They did so through the docked hatches of the Apollo and Soyuz craft as part of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. It wasn't so much the event as the implications which were important. This was during the cold war, when the US and USSR had thousands of megatons of weaponry aimed at each other. The handshake signified the fact that through science and technology, and with intelligence and openness, we could survive the cold war by calling it off and working together. The handshake was the most important symbol of peace for our planet's future.

An interesting point that came out from the project was the difference in the technologies used. Deke Slayton calculated some of the docking maneuvers with an HP-65 handheld calculator, which sold for $795 at the time. The Soyuz crew did their calculations with a stop watch and a slide rule. Yes, our technology was superior. But they were flying successfully with technology that was centuries old but still good enough to do the job.

Dennis McClain-Furmanski, Dalworthington Gardens, Texas (Sent Friday, July 20, 2007 9:54 PM)

"We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. "
"TEXT OF PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY'S RICE STADIUM MOON SPEECH"

I believe someone has the wrong idea about JFK. His intent was for the United States to be the first at everything we tackled, especially in space.

Henry Zawadzki (Sent Friday, July 20, 2007 11:08 PM)

Thank you, Alan! I actually tracked down the evoloterra.com site earlier today, but was disheartened because it hadn't been updated since 2003. Your column encourages me though; clearly there are many of us who realize what the 20th of July means.

William, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Saturday, July 21, 2007 3:07 AM)

" There are few events and goals that could have united us in this way and we do ourselves a disservice to argue that the Soviets were behind us technologically. They in fact hold MANY of the first records and to this day have engineering abilities second to none. Thus, we could have certainly used the help!
Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA
"
I don't get where that all came from, you do remember the Soviet Union don't you?
It takes two to tango and co-operation with the US was not on the Soviet Agenda.

As for their technology being second to none I suggest you look up the "Devil's Venom" rocket fuel incident among others.
If the soviets had not fallen so far behind and lost so many key scientists to purges, accidents, and defections, they would not have abandoned their planned Moon missions.

Now that the Soviet Union is no more the Russians and US co-Operate on a regular basis despite political differences.

Some private satellite launching companies use surplus Soviet ICBM engines, so thats beating swords into plowshares.
The Starwars program also produced a wealth of research used in today's space program.

Its an unfortunate fact that the military desire to create better ways of killing each other has spurred technology.

I think we'd all prefer to ride horse drawn carriages in a world that never knew war, but the same higher mental processes which separate man from ape also produced violence and war.
When Nimrod shot an arrow into the heavens the space race began.
The confounding of tongues at the Tower of Babble may have saved mankind from destroying its self before it developed enough common sense to control the forces we've learned to unleash.
Good thing Nimrod didn't have a nuke.

Wayne, TN (Sent Saturday, July 21, 2007 5:01 PM)

Chris, excellent comment. I wonder if Gene Roddenbury
got his ideas about inter-cultural space travel for Star Trek from that speech. The ISS is a grand vision that probably picks up from where JFK left off. But it is very unclear as to just how the ISS benefits us in real ways from so called research in space. Also, the Apollo-Soyuz was possibly too little-too late but nevertheless poignant for the time.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Saturday, July 21, 2007 5:27 PM)

"An interesting point that came out from the project was the difference in the technologies used. Deke Slayton calculated some of the docking maneuvers with an HP-65 handheld calculator, which sold for $795 at the time. The Soyuz crew did their calculations with a stop watch and a slide rule. Yes, our technology was superior. But they were flying successfully with technology that was centuries old but still good enough to do the job.
Dennis McClain-Furmanski, Dalworthington Gardens, Texas
"
I still have my slide rule, back when I got it a pocket calculator was coat pocket size at best. Now I use a calculator the size of a credit card and powered by a solar cell.

An old sci Fi story I read awhileback had the crew of a deep space probe using a language analyser to communicate with aliens. The system used punch cards because that system was less likely to fail after decades in interstellar space than the computers we use now.

Wayne, TN (Sent Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:28 PM)

JFK, in spite of Marilyn, will always be seen as one of America's great presidents. He was daring, not timid, a veteran who actually fought the enemy. He had big ideas and did his best to bring them to fruition. Chris E. and Thomas A. see that side of him, the peacemaker side.
Henry Z. and Wayne TN. see only the other side, the competitor, evidently not agreeing that while competition can be good, co-operation is always better at bringing out the best in Mankind, true blue or really red making no difference when advancing our footsteps beyond Earth's borders into Space.

Des Emery, St.Thomas, ON, Canada (Sent Sunday, July 22, 2007 8:34 PM)

No man has been on the moon! No man shell reach the moon surface, alive! This is a persistent truth.
We can not land on no atmosphere planets. Our vechicles can not steer, brake, or make any other manouvre in lack of atmosphere (molecular mass). Things are different out there. We can run our rocket on Earth becouse of atmposphere. We can run our cars becouse of roads in contact with rubber tires. There is a reaction plan of movement! Never forget that! As long as we do not have a reaction plan, we can not move. In out of space, there is nothing, a void! Additionally, Donald Rumsfeld and Henrry Kissinger admitted that the MOON LANDING has been made by film director Stanley Kubrick, in a MGM studio, in London. Forget about all other crap assumptions that, the moon landing has been made in Arizona or Nevada, the pictures were not taken properly, etc. And, if we follow the logic, we realise that there is a world conspiracy or stupidity. No gouverment or rocket scientist issued this matter. Ever. Belive me, it is a world of lies, of image and fantasy. An atomic bomb will never blow up in out of space. These things are for certain. Wake up!

sorinul, Bucharest, Romania (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 8:34 AM)

Yeah, yeah. Sorinul, the New York Times told Robert Goddard that rockets can't work in vacuum, too. Guess all those communications satellites (one of which even took the long route around the Moon, a few years ago, in order to get into position) weather sats, ICBMs (which leave the atmosphere enroute to target) and Mike Melville (SpaceShipOne pilot, who also left the meaningful atmosphere) are part of the conspiracy, too...

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/
9805/13/crippled.satellite/index.html

Frank Glover (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 6:34 PM)

"I actually tracked down the evoloterra.com site earlier today, but was disheartened because it hadn't been updated since 2003."

As one of the site's proprietors, what would there be to update? What's changed since 2003 that needs to be noted on the site? I'm not sure what caused the "disheartening."

Rand Simberg, Jackson, Wyoming (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:16 AM)

Sorinul, your skepticism is welcome. I too have had trouble envisioning how propulsion works in a vacuum and it wasn't until your letter forced me to visualize it that I now understand that it doesn't push against an atmosphere but against the nozzle as it is expelled at much higher speeds. Many people thought like you did in the 1930s until Robert Goddard (as Frank Glover just pointed out above) demonstrated how rockets could indeed work in a vacuum. As frank noted, look at all the Satellites and space shuttles that work in a vacuum, so we aren't just talking about Apollo.

Henry, I see what you are saying, but in the very first sentence of your quote "all people" is what jumps out at me. I don't think a friendly competition to be best runs counter to his notion of world peace and cooperation. I personally wonder if wanting to share such technology is what got him eventually killed?

Oh... and I'll take the Soviet shuttle (which flew automated and was launched with a super powerful booster heavy lift rocket) than our own shuttle anyday! They have the heaviest lift military transports, the largest helecopters, the best fighter aircraft, the safest space program, ... There is a lot they did better than us! It serves us no good to denie the achievments of others.

Chris E (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:54 AM)

All right, Chris, let me explain myself further. The satellites you are mentioned, are lounched with a initial speed. These satellites are supposed to spin around the Earth or..to stay sill, according to their mission. Firstly, we should remind ourselves the atmospheric layers of the Earth according to distance. Atmosphere (the very first), troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere and exosphere (the last). Well, we can work only in atmosphere, troposphere, stratosphere and mesosphere, where the molecular mass is still present (in a very low quantity though, in mesosphere). So, you can imagine that, beyond exosphere, there is absolutely...nothing. If, we still want to conquer the Moon or any other planet with no atmosphere, we really have to find another propulsion meaning. And...so far, I heard that the scientists found...nothing. Did you heard something else?

sorinul, Bucharest, Romania (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:52 PM)

"I now understand that it doesn't push against an atmosphere but against the nozzle as it is expelled at much higher speeds."

Indeed, rockets are *more* efficent in vacuum, as there's nothing to slow the exhaust gases. And nozzle design is sensitive to the ambient pressure, too. (a good sea-level design is not a good vacuum design) To deny this doesn't just deny Apollo, but Sputnik-1 and anything thereafter. And as recently as early June, I had occasion to observe a contact through an Amateur Radio satellite which came above the local horizon and tracked by a hand-held antenna just as predicted...

"Oh... and I'll take the Soviet shuttle (which flew automated and was launched with a super powerful booster heavy lift rocket) than our own shuttle anyday!"

Now, I'll give the Soviets/Russians their due (espically in space station operations) any day of the week. But...how can you get that excited over one orbiter that flew only once, in a program that was subsequently cancelled (for budgetary, not technical reasons) and has since been heavily damaged in a hangar collapse?

Frank Glover (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:00 PM)

"But...how can you get that excited over one orbiter that flew only once..."

Thanks for writing Frank! I knew their shuttle only flew once. The Energia heavy lift booster flew twice to my knowledge. Putting the main engines on the actual shuttle like we did was a major mistake as we had no heavy left capacity without the shuttle, which was a lot of worthless weight if you didn't intend to return the payload. Thus their concept of a separate system was better! If Energia was still working we could be back to the moon and on to mars or whatever by now. Super heavy lift has been a decided shortfall and I remember the very day on Satellite TV in the early 1990s when our congress cancelled our own attempt at a shuttle derived heavy lift booster that used the orange central tank and put the main engines on the back end. To approve the space station but cancel the affordable rocket that was decidedly needed to help build it was a pathetic and inexcusable mistake by one man in a freek'en subcommittee. That's why I say give Nasa their own budget and don't interfere as much.

Chris Eldridge (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:47 PM)

i have just completed a survey (opinion poll).
the people who participated in the survey were high school graduates. The question in the survey was this. Did America (nasa) land men on the moon (apollo 11-17). 40% of the people said no it was some type of government conspiricy. how sad.

john farris, seattle,wash. (Sent Sunday, September 09, 2007 7:41 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=281344

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG