please empty your brain below
Well put, DG! For a moment i thought the Mars exploration plans were going to "re-light the fire", but it seems not really...

Barend | 20.07.19 - 2:01 a.m. | #

The USA did it because they were trying to win a propaganda war against the USSR.

I guess the Challenger explosion put a damper on things, but now there is no longer any point, and it is unclear what the next milestone should be.

John | 20.07.19 - 7:17 a.m. | #

At the Science Museum this week I listened to the ever-relevant James Burke make two predictions:
1) The Chinese will land on Mars within 10-15 years because they can afford to.
2) Nanotechnology factories will revolutionise future interplanetary travel.

I don't understand point 2).

Frank F | 20.07.19 - 8:03 a.m. | #

I was in Moscow in 1992, and was given the contract to sell Helen Sharman's spacesuit back in the UK for £25,000 over a vodka fuelled session.

However, I was only there on a course on my part time MBA and had my job to go back to, so had no time nor means to market it. I also thought it was overpriced.

Ken | 20.07.19 - 8:13 a.m. | #

Not only have they all been men, they've all been white men, a little bit of Gil Scott-Heron for your Saturday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

Still Anon | 20.07.19 - 8:38 a.m. | #

I suggest that unwilling is the word.

As John said, what's the point? If it is for science, robots can do it cheaper, safer and easier. That was not anticipated.

Confused | 20.07.19 - 9:00 a.m. | #

Arthur C Clarke also wrote "Prelude to Space", about the build-up to the launch the first mission in space ( no half-measures, it was to go straight to the moon, and would be privately-funded and- of course - British!)

Written in 1947 (ten years before Sputnik), he considered it a bit far-fetched to contemplate manned spaceflight as soon as, erm, 1978.

Timbo | 20.07.19 - 9:11 a.m. | #

I was 6 months old while Apollo 17 was on the moon, so missed it all.

I was at the talk at the Science Museum this week (great film, by the way) and I agree, the Chinese are likely to put people - probably including a woman - on the Moon within a decade or two, for similar reasons to the Americans in the 1960s: to show that they can, for propaganda and prestige reasons.

I think Burke's point on nanotechnology factories is that it will be a game changer. You would no longer need to take everything with you: you just take your super 3D printer and create whatever you need from the material that is lying around. They already have 3D printers on the ISS, but the ability to construct objects from atoms upwards would be almost magic, like a Star Trek replicator.

Why go? Because it is there. The Chinese have the means and the motivation, and don't have to worry too much about public opinion. But climate change will get them too eventually.

Andrew | 20.07.19 - 9:29 a.m. | #

The UK on was permanent GMT+1 (British Standard Time) from October 1968 to October 1971, so Armstrong's "small step" at 02:56 UTC was almost 4am in the UK.

Andrew | 20.07.19 - 9:36 a.m. | #

The BBC wiped all its Apollo tapes.
I think that's why they're showing so many programs now in the hope we won't notice.

Joho | Homepage | 20.07.19 - 10:07 a.m. | #

Seeing what we do to the planet we depend on for survival, I think it's just as well mankind hasn't gone on to "conquer" other planets.

Cornish Cockney | 20.07.19 - 10:28 a.m. | #

Getting into space is seriously expensive and difficult, especially manned space missions. The super rich on the commercial space flights won't get very far above the earth anyway

Mikey C | 20.07.19 - 11:39 a.m. | #

Joho: Somewhat contrary to one of the quotes in that piece, very early video recorders did exist back then but you had to be very rich and very technical to use them. At least one recording of the BBC Moon landing coverage was made and discovered in 1998 but it wasn't possible to extract a viewable copy.

Tim Roll-Pickering | Homepage | 20.07.19 - 10:35 p.m. | #

Although I agree how subsequent life has not stood up against the gleaming promise of Thunderbirds and Star Trek, the developing technology has been used brilliantly on the unmanned exploration, such as the Hubble telescope, Curiosity lasting 14 years on Mars, and the fact that if anyone is out there to intercept the Voyagers, they are likely to do so long after our precarious little blue dot has disappeared. In a strange sort of way, I'm glad the moon is not being overrun by the human footprint. I like to look up and know that it remains a domain beyond our easy exploitation, just as how the human imprint and ownership of our land mostly vanishes when it hits the coastline, and there remains only the shifting sea, ships plying their way, and the far horizon.

NickW | Homepage | 20.07.19 - 10:43 p.m. | #

If we started a lunar project from scratch nowadays the Saturn V sans electronics would make a good basis. The tech of today would allow for so much more cargo given the advances in metallurgical science & computer power.

Andrew Jarman | 20.07.19 - 10:59 p.m. | #

Those were the days when we were all interested and excited by scientific advances and technological developments. Now we're not, and there's a far more prevalent anti-science attitude at large. We're no longer excited by giant moon rockets nor the human ingenuity involved in putting humans on the moon or sending Voyager probes deep into outer space. Now we fear science and technology, and seem more concerned about banning cars from our streets than putting people on the moon.

ActonMan | 21.07.19 - 10:02 a.m. | #

"Banning cars from our streets" has nothing to do with fear of science and technology; it's about making those streets cleaner, safer and generally more pleasant places to be.

Andrew | 21.07.19 - 7:53 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy