What if the Apollo 13 explosion happened in lunar orbit?

[Urwumpe]

Hm, the tech was borderline back then, to the point that we oh-so-twitterly-advanced are having a hard time duplicating the effort. Rocket science is still rocket science, and still on the kaboomey side.

Practically true, but there is another tiny detail that he has right: Apollo wasn't the edge of technology of the day, it was even less advanced than Gemini. Apollo was somewhere between the brute force approach (big rocket, limited risk by higher safety margins) and the best practice technology (not the most advanced, but the selected not so advanced technology tested and improved until it was as good as it can get).

 

[Ghostrider]

Practically true, but there is another tiny detail that he has right: Apollo wasn't the edge of technology of the day, it was even less advanced than Gemini.

I'm a big Gemini fan (you can't but love a convertible space capsule) and I still think that after Apollo, updating Gemini would have been a good bet. Unfortunately, I don't have any leverage on the US Space Program.

Or maybe it should be "fortunately", or shiny miniskirts and purple wigs would have been mandatory for all NASA female personnel by now...

 

[FADEC]

And yet, the whole world was watching.
Nothing else in history have quite the same effect.

The Apollo 11 landing was seen by about 600 million TV viewer. The world population was 3.3 billion I think. And that public interest went down quite rapidly for the following missions. I think that the excitement is between nostalgia and myth rather than a real influence of the world. Today it's basically awesome for space flight enthusiasts. And that community sadly is a quite small one. The average Joe doesn't really care, or thinks it was fake anyway.

The memorial ceremony for Michael Jackson was seen by an amazing one billion TV viewer. And I think that 9/11 was seen by an euqal number of people, or even more.

From that three events, I think the most influential one was 9/11, sadly. Resulting in dubious political decisions, scare-mongering and invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[TMac3000]

I think it's a shame we never tried that manned Venus flyby

 

[Ghostrider]

The memorial ceremony for Michael Jackson was seen by an amazing one billion TV viewer. And I think that 9/11 was seen by an euqal number of people, or even more.

It also happens that now we have more TVs around. In 1969 there were still families without a TV set, now we have multiple sets for family or even per person. Live coverage of events in 1969 was still pretty rare, now it's commonplace (we don't have "film at 11" anymore). You don't even need expensive infrastructure to cover an event live, you only need your smartphone. The 21st century is a different animal, a comparable event today would have a quite diverse and wide coverage.

As for the average Joe... Don't dismiss him so easily. I've been to some spaceflight and Apollo-related public conferences (not hoax stuff) and every time I saw a full house. A very variegated public and not just space enthusiasts, and of all ages. A lot of young people who never had the direct experience of the Apollo flights were the most fascinated.

And about Iraq and Afghanistan, they're a big deal now but in 20 years time (or less) they'll be small stuff. It's nothing like 'Nam, we're alas quite used now (after Somalia) to see the might of the Western military bogged down with bad political choices and undefined objectives. Public opinion also shifts its collective focus quite rapidly. Young people may react strongly to it because it's THE big thing of their generation, but while I'm no Gandalf in age terms, it's just another couple of conflicts in an age that has seen many.

 

[Keatah]

Hm, the tech was borderline back then, to the point that we oh-so-twitterly-advanced are having a hard time duplicating the effort. Rocket science is still rocket science, and still on the kaboomey side. The internet and computer tech today is mainly "same stuff as yesterday, only faster and flashier". There is no big paradigm shift in sight as it has been with the explosion of home computers in the late '70s-early '80s. Quite simply, we do with one small device what we used to do with many larger devices, but there's no "widening" as we experienced with the early days of the Web. If anything, we're now experiencing a low tide as walled gardens and secluded communities displace the Great Wide Open that used to be.

I personally think we're better off with the Moon landings than without. I like the fact that looking at the Moon I can say "Well, some guy has been there". It's inspirational, and reminds me that mankind could still learn that life is about more than GNP figures and 3-months ROI.

I agree that the twittery crowd is becoming dumbed down if that's what you're alluding to.

The computer and internet stuff is the same thing now as it was then. In a way yes and in a way no. Yes because it is just pushing bits and bytes around. No, because of all the connectivity options, including twitter!

I agree there has been no paradigm shift in the last, what, 25-30 years? Yes.. No shift. Everything is evolutionary instead of revolutionary. The computer being used as tool to control you and your finances is subtle, but a real one, for example.

Today we are so removed in time from the moon landings and I think they have little effect on today's youth. In fact, the other day I was over at the neices and nephews house and they commandeered my computer to watch Tik Tok Kesha's Dr. Drew video and to get their iPod's updated with Katy Perry music. Ughh. My moon landing clips and vids were referred to as old man sci-fi stuff!

It's the frettings about ROI and GNP and next month's bottom line that put food on your table. Sad but true.

Practically true, but there is another tiny detail that he has right: Apollo wasn't the edge of technology of the day, it was even less advanced than Gemini. Apollo was somewhere between the brute force approach (big rocket, limited risk by higher safety margins) and the best practice technology (not the most advanced, but the selected not so advanced technology tested and improved until it was as good as it can get).

What were the main areas where Apollo lagged in tech? IMHO more advanced tech is not always better. And the same hold true for software revisions, especially makework-busywork version upgrades that add only eye candy.

I think it's a shame we never tried that manned Venus flyby

What was that all about?

The Apollo 11 landing was seen by about 600 million TV viewer. The world population was 3.3 billion I think. And that public interest went down quite rapidly for the following missions. I think that the excitement is between nostalgia and myth rather than a real influence of the world. Today it's basically awesome for space flight enthusiasts. And that community sadly is a quite small one. The average Joe doesn't really care, or thinks it was fake anyway.

The memorial ceremony for Michael Jackson was seen by an amazing one billion TV viewer. And I think that 9/11 was seen by an euqal number of people, or even more.

From that three events, I think the most influential one was 9/11, sadly. Resulting in dubious political decisions, scare-mongering and invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Real spaceflight is too complicated and boring and slow-moving to be of interest to much of today's youth.

It's what the media broadcasts and deems important that determines how many viewers it gets. That and things that are "celebrity" and "death & destruction" related will always take the numbers over science and mankind progress.

I wonder how the world will view science and space activities when a killer asteroid is discovered? And then subsequently blown off course by a nuke or some other tech? Would it be as fantastic as Apollo. I say it might be far more interesting.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------

It also happens that now we have more TVs around. In 1969 there were still families without a TV set, now we have multiple sets for family or even per person. Live coverage of events in 1969 was still pretty rare, now it's commonplace (we don't have "film at 11" anymore). You don't even need expensive infrastructure to cover an event live, you only need your smartphone. The 21st century is a different animal, a comparable event today would have a quite diverse and wide coverage.

And pray-tell what is a cell-phone network in combination with the internet? Satellites? Fiber-optics? This is a trillion dollar network. Without it your toy cellphones would cease to operate.

As for the average Joe... Don't dismiss him so easily. I've been to some spaceflight and Apollo-related public conferences (not hoax stuff) and every time I saw a full house. A very variegated public and not just space enthusiasts, and of all ages. A lot of young people who never had the direct experience of the Apollo flights were the most fascinated.

The average Joe and his buddies Tom, Dick, and Harry are write-offs. The interest you observe is but a curiosity. How many of them would donate 1 day a week of their time applying a skill they have, for free, to the betterment of the space program?

 

[T.Neo]

What was that all about?

A [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby"]manned flyby of Venus[/ame], using Apollo technology as part of the Apollo Applications Program.

A very interesting idea, but seems considerably risky in retrospect, especially considering the relatively primitive study of long-duration flights at that time.

 

[Ghostrider]

The computer and internet stuff is the same thing now as it was then. In a way yes and in a way no. Yes because it is just pushing bits and bytes around. No, because of all the connectivity options, including twitter!

Twitter is just a network that exists as a top layer on a lot of pre-existing stuff. It's not revolutionary by any means. It's like Lotus 1-2-3 after VisiCalc.

It's the frettings about ROI and GNP and next month's bottom line that put food on your table. Sad but true.

The way I see it, they are putting food OFF our tables and putting a new Mercedes in some exec's garage, more sadly. What puts food on MY table is, often, someone fretting too much about ghost ROIs.

What was that all about?

I think it was the proposed Apollo spin-off that used a SIV-B stage as a habitat-lab to do a manned Venus flyby. There ought to be an add-on somewhere.

And pray-tell what is a cell-phone network in combination with the internet? Satellites? Fiber-optics? This is a trillion dollar network. Without it your toy cellphones would cease to operate.

Don't know, I don't have a Barbie phone. Pink puts me off. Where does this relate to my statement that today, live coverage is ubiquitous?

The average Joe and his buddies Tom, Dick, and Harry are write-offs. The interest you observe is but a curiosity.

Wow, you're omniscient. From now on, each and every question I'll have, I'll ask you. You are... MULTIVAC!:lol:

How many of them would donate 1 day a week of their time applying a skill they have, for free, to the betterment of the space program?

You know, I'll be asking them that very question this Friday over pizza.

 

[Urwumpe]

What were the main areas where Apollo lagged in tech? IMHO more advanced tech is not always better. And the same hold true for software revisions, especially makework-busywork version upgrades that add only eye candy.

Mainly computer and navigation equipment, but also engines and structural technology had been far from state of the art back then. Even the operations of Apollo had not always been state of the art, except the parts in deep space.

More advanced is generally better, there are only popular exceptions in which the more modern choice had been less good than before.

 

[John_L]

Wow, I can't believe some of the comments I've been reading in this tread concerning weather Apollo, or the entire program in general, and I'm appalled by some of the comments stating it was "no big deal" what technology was produced. This must be coming from the younger crowd who just doesn't realize the benefits we've realized from the program.

Here's just a small taste of a handful of items that made there way into our lives...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/pdf/80660main_ApolloFS.pdf

That's not a comprehensive list, it's not even 1/1000th of a percent of the "true" list. The true list is virtually impossible to define.

You can't really even point at actual items and say "see..." because it's the effect on how research and development has changed and pressed into areas of study due to the massive effort to make the Moon landing happen.

I was born in 1964, and I barely recall watching the men land and walk on the moon, but I do remember. I also remember the world was quite different back then. Nothing digital existed in the average person's life, and yet today, you're surrounded by it in virtually every electronic device we have from computers to cell phones to tvs, cameras, toasters even. Cars, boats, plans, spacecraft, space stations, bicycles... regardless of what area you look into, there's modern technology that affected it.

I'm not saying this tech wouldn't have eventually developed anyways... the transistor... the heart of all things digital came along before we were into the space race, but the space race pushed certain fields... specifically electronics, materials sciences (every thing from metals to plastics to textiles), and of course, rocketry were greatly advanced very much quicker. Despite those "major" areas, there's thousands upon thousands things that have seen improvement due to the space program, including things as apparently mundane as the tread design on the bottom of your foot. The field of medicine has also seen much improvement due to the space program.

If anyone things that the space race didn't contribute to modern technology couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

[FADEC]

A lot of things which are called Apollo spin-offs actually aren't really. The so called list is more a myth due to overestimating Apollo.

Take the solar panels as an example. NASA did not invent them, and they already used them before Apollo even was an idea literally. The electrical drilling machine / screwdriver: already invented before there even was any rocket lifting off into the sky. That it became cordless was a question of time, not a question of Apollo. And even the space pen, which is often mentioned along Apollo, wasn't an Apollo spin-off. NASA did not even order the development. They just did buy it (they used lead pencils before while Russia was using grease pencils).

The biggest and most important Apollo spin-off was inspiration I think. But if you take a close look to the technologies and do comparisons, Apollo turns out to be one product during a time of big and significant technological progresses in many fields. It wasn't really that much special as NASA tries to sell it.

 

[Capt_hensley]

A lot of things which are called Apollo spin-offs actually aren't really. The so called list is more a myth due to overestimating Apollo.

Yes but alot of things were, not that I'm an authority.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_s...words=nasa+spinoffs&sprefix=nasa+spin,aps,225
I found these books very interesting.

 

[John_L]

A lot of things which are called Apollo spin-offs actually aren't really. The so called list is more a myth due to overestimating Apollo.

Take the solar panels as an example. NASA did not invent them, and they already used them before Apollo even was an idea literally. The electrical drilling machine / screwdriver: already invented before there even was any rocket lifting off into the sky. That it became cordless was a question of time, not a question of Apollo. And even the space pen, which is often mentioned along Apollo, wasn't an Apollo spin-off. NASA did not even order the development. They just did buy it (they used lead pencils before while Russia was using grease pencils).

The biggest and most important Apollo spin-off was inspiration I think. But if you take a close look to the technologies and do comparisons, Apollo turns out to be one product during a time of big and significant technological progresses in many fields. It wasn't really that much special as NASA tries to sell it.

You couldn't be more wrong...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135690/NASA_s_Apollo_technology_has_changed_history

Yes, there are some common misconceptions like Tang and velcro being technology spin offs when they weren't, but that doesn't mean there weren't areas of knowledge that there were huge advances in technology directly related to the space program. As I stated before, much of these things would have eventually came along, but the Space Race pushed many areas of technology all at once, advancing technologies a few key areas which has since pushed advancements in other areas due to the advanced hardware we built due to the space program. I'm not pointing to the cordless drill as a "huge benefit" of going to the moon, but the hundreds of thousands of little benefits like that all add up to a huge benefit. The list is so incomprehensibly massively large that it boggles the mind.

What Apollo did was to force advancements in electronics, computers, and material sciences because weight was such an issue. All this happened all at once. It wasn't so much any individual thing, but many things, and all at once. That's what Apollo did, and our lives today are VERY different than back then, believe me, I know, I lived in both worlds.

 

[FADEC]

I think that our lives today aren't very different than back then due to Apollo. It's different basically because the technological and scientific progress did already speed up during and after WWI and WWII, but especially during the post war economic boom in the 1950s. Computers also were developed and significantly changed in Germany and Russia before and during the Apollo era. It was the overall progress and change in technology which made the US and UDSSR space programs possible at all (let alone the progress of aviation which was taking place simultaneously already since the 1950s). Apollo was an accompaniment of a new era rather than a cause/origin.

Not to mention the changes of our societies, which were taking place anyway (a new music culture, student movements, political changes etc.).

 

[Urwumpe]

You couldn't be more wrong...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135690/NASA_s_Apollo_technology_has_changed_history

That article is also poorly researched.

Take transistors, the big argument in the article. The first big program using them had not been Apollo, but Minuteman - this program put a few hundred times more money into semiconductor research than Apollo. Gemini had them already in use. Intel was founded in 1968 - Apollo was already flying then and all computers and electronics most likely already completely procured (Can't verify this without looking into endless NASA memos).

Same for software development aspects: Other military programs that happened ten years before Apollo already set the standards. Take SAGE as example. Apollos software development wasn't something that set the standards for us.

Freeze dried food is another topic: Actually developed way waaaay before Apollo, but you can say that it at least popularized it among the general public.

Even for project management, Apollo only set the negative examples. Gemini is still the project which set the best practices in spaceflight project planning, experiences from Gemini also set the foundation for most software project management systems.

Especially the claim that without Apollo, we wouldn't have notebooks today, is pretty far sketched. All technological innovations that led to those mobile computers had been developed outside Apollo.

 

[Keatah]

Gemini is cool. What other spacecraft had gullwing doors?

 

[Urwumpe]

Gemini is cool. What other spacecraft had gullwing doors?

Well, it had the opposite of gullwing doors, since they had been rotating around the lower end of them.