Forty-five years ago today, I was sitting home on the floor in my pajamas, watching the television, as the first American astronaut went into earth orbit. I don't recall the suspense about the heat shield, but it may be that it wasn't broadcast live, occurring behind the scenes. Or it may be that I was just too young to make sense of what was going on.

It's my earliest recollection of the human space program, a subject that became one of lifelong fascination to me, and a career.

Things tha seem possible no longer even seemed probable.

God speed John Glenn.

It is a really different America...

Ask Lisa Nowak (sorry couldnt resist)

Robert

Carolyn Porco mentions the anniversary in an op-ed in today's NY Times. The plans for moon bases and Mars missions she mentions early in the article were projections of the confident, brave men and women who won WWII. Their cynical, spoiled children who took to the streets in 1968 and began deconstructing our civilization, forced an end to Apollo. Had we continued with a vigorous, optimistic, outward-bound program of human exploration, we would be a different, better people today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/opinion/20porco.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

this is the link.

It is an interesting op ed.

Robert

I wish I was old enough to remember even Apollo. I was just under 3 years old when Schmitt and Cernan competed our last visit to the moon. The only thing I remember of Skylab was the debacle of it's destruction. Of course by then, the media stopped paying attention, and so had the American public. Sad.

All that being said, I envy you those memories of John Glenn's mission, Rand.

I envy you those memories of John Glenn's mission, Rand.

Well, I envy you your (relative) youth. ;-)

Had we continued with a vigorous, optimistic, outward-bound program of human exploration, we would be a different, better people today.

That was Dyna Soar. Apollo was an unsustainable populist spectacle.

That was Dyna Soar. Apollo was an unsustainable populist spectacle.

As opposed to DynaSoar, which was an unsustainable military program.

Dyna Soar wasn't strictly military. Unsustainable? As compared to what was done both civilian and military? Seems to me that we spent more and accomplished less with what we have done.

Unsustainable? As compared to what was done both civilian and military?

It was unsustainable in the same sense Apollo was unsustainable -- the decision makers did not see enough value in it to justify the cost of continuing with it.

It was unsustainable in the same sense Apollo was unsustainable -- the decision makers did not see enough value in it to justify the cost of continuing with it.

Perhaps, but that's not how I recall things. I recall a Kennedy campaign riding a fabrication called the "missile gap." That worked so well in garnering votes that JFK, in his grandiose style, kept astride that horse to gallop to the moon.

As I recall, dissenters from that policy received much the same treatment as do global warming dissenters today. It's called politics.

But then I'm aging and my memory might not be the best.

I only remember the 3rd or 4th shuttle launch. Wasn't that into space when I was a kid. For me it was all about HOT RODS POPPING WHEELIES VROOOOMMM!!

Perhaps, but that's not how I recall things.

Well, as I recall, in this universe, funding for Saturn and Apollo was not continued. Maybe it was different in your alternate reality?

What the missile gap/etc. had to do with the unsustainability of Apollo I am at a loss to guess.

Well, as I recall, in this universe, funding for Saturn and Apollo was not continued.

They'd shot their wad with the mooning. Those programs did not lead naturally to more practical endeavors like those conducted with the space shuttle or to any military application. X-20 would have been an incremental advance with military, scientific and commercial (satellites) applications. What would have logically followed X-20, in the 1980s, would have been whatever we wished.

What the missile gap/etc. had to do with the unsustainability of Apollo I am at a loss to guess.

Both were political. The missile gap was to get elected and Apollo was circus. Camelot!

> It was unsustainable in the same sense Apollo was unsustainable -- the decision
> makers did not see enough value in it to justify the cost of continuing with it.

Paul, you're ignoring political history.

DynaSoar wasn't cancelled because of cost. It was cancelled because the powers that be wanted space to be "reserved for peaceful purposes." We were in a Cold War, which the politicians did not want to win. Their goal was a perpetual draw -- "peaceful coexistance" -- and projects like DynaSoar threatened that goal.

Besides, you misunderstand the purpose of X-projects. They're experiments, which are meant to prove concepts for future vehicles. They aren't supposed to be "sustainable."

> Dyna Soar wasn't strictly military.

The funding line for DynaSoar was Weapon System 464L.

That indicates a military program.

DynaSoar wasn't cancelled because of cost. It was cancelled because the powers that be wanted space to be "reserved for peaceful purposes." We were in a Cold War, which the politicians did not want to win.

There was a concern that too much winning might cause the Soviets to push the button. The good old days when you could read serious debate of the pros and cons of preemptive strikes.

And according to McNamara, we came like real close to a nuclear exchange on three occasions during his time as SecDef.