Fifty years is a long time in space flight terms, although a very short time in the span of human history. But, a half-century ago this week, humans changed history in a few short minutes. They blasted off to land on the Moon. That seems like ancient history to the people born since that time. To those of us who watched it happen (no matter what our age at the time), it’s like it happened just a few years ago. It is very hard to believe that 50 years have gone by since that momentous week.
Most of us expected that we’d be much further along in space missions by now, although none of us could have predicted the current state of the world’s space programs from that vantage point so long ago. There are more than 75 countries with the capability of sending satellites to space, but only a handful can send humans. That will change, of course. But, our future in space — as imagined from that date in the 1960s — is not quite what we hoped it would be.
Spinoffs from the Apollo Missions
The run-up to the Apollo landings on the Moon required the Gemini missions, plus the precursor Apollo missions. But, it also required a lot of technological development. I’m not talking about the usual spinoff citations such as Teflon and so on. Those happened and we’re better for most of them.
To get to the Moon, there are whole fields of technological expertise and manufacture that didn’t exist before John F. Kennedy pointed us there. In addition, going to the Moon required a huge ramp-up in science education. There simply weren’t enough scientists and engineers to do the work that needed to be done.
Last week I was invited to appear on a radio show to talk about the buildup to Apollo. (The show didn’t happen for technical reasons at their end.) I prepared a lot of background material to discuss. One of the aspects that I really didn’t think too much about WAS that ramp-up in education. I think that’s, in part, because I was in the middle of it. My generation of kids who started school in the 60s benefitted from this vastly improved science education. That was thanks to the space program in the U.S. I wrote about that in my book called Space Exploration (see the link to the left).
In it, I wrote:
“During the Space Race, it was clear that more science and technical education was needed as the countries ramped up to meet the personnel needs of a space infrastructure that was being built almost overnight. In the U.S., the government passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), in 1958. Not only was it a response to Sputnik, but it became very clear the nation – which already had a very good educational system — needed to train even more scientists and technical experts than it already had. So, money flowed to school districts for curriculum upgrades and science teachers, to colleges for advanced courses of study. The National Science Foundation (NSF) was granted a half billion dollars over twenty years for math and science curriculum upgrades and teacher development.”
Education and Domes
One of the more interesting things that I found out in my research for the book is that the space race spurred the building of large numbers of planetarium facilities in the U.S. There was a big jump in the numbers of facilities built, particularly in the U.S. It starts in the early 60s and topped out around 1973 — with installations slowing down after that. This coincides fairly well with the rise of space development through the Gemini and Apollo programs.
We also saw planetariums play a part early in the space race. Places such as Morehead Planetarium in North Carolina and the Griffith Observatory in the US hosted astronauts for training. There were similar programs for cosmonauts at the Moscow Planetarium in the then Soviet Union.
Of course, planetarium facilities existed before the race. They continue to be built (albeit at a much slower pace than during those years). And, they remain in the public mind as places to learn the sky and about the space programs, which is a function they still serve today.
We Got to the Moon, Then What?
In the years after the successful Moon landings, for a variety of reasons, the Moon wasn’t quite such an inviting target for human exploration. Sure, we’ve been sending very successful robotic landers and orbiters and that continues today. But, going BACK to the Moon for good hasn’t been quite the draw it used to have. That will also change, of course. Not because someone in the U.S. White House (who can’t tell the difference between the Moon and Mars) said so. It’s bigger than that. It’s because the place is an interesting scientific (and very likely political) target. That’s what I’ve been talking about in my previous entries.
Obviously, I think we need to put some focus on lunar missions. It’s still the next logical step in outward exploration. We can quibble about whether a fabulously expensive lunar gateway should be part of the equation. In the end, just getting to the Moon is important. We can use it for its resources and scientific revelations, and as a steppingstone “out” to the rest of the solar system.
Mars and Beyond?
As for whether we SHOULD go to Mars, that has been a long-term goal since the earliest days of the space race. Wernher von Braun cited it as a goal. I took part in studies in the 1980s that looked at possible scenarios for Mars missions. Some of them included many of the robotic precursors we see today.
So, yes, I think we should go. We need to do it in a measured way, learn to live and work in space near Earth where we can make rescues if we need to during the early phases, and then when the tech is workable and we know we can subject humans to these missions, send them along. I have long said that the first generation of Mars explorers is among us — around the world. If we’re going to send them, we owe it to them to do good planning for safe, effective missions.
Celebrate Apollo
While what we are seeing today in terms of space exploration may not be what people expected when Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins made their journey 50 years ago this week, it’s still that step outwards. The questions we will want to answer for ourselves as time goes by are many and varied. The biggest one is, “Will we succeed in taking the big steps for humanity that Armstrong spoke of when he set foot on the lunar surface?”
I’m hoping we will, but there’s a LOT of work to be done. Science education is under attack, as its science itself, in the U.S. NASA is constantly underfunded. It is criticized for nearly everything it does, good or bad. Some complain it’s just a jobs program for wealthy defense and aerospace contractors. Others feel that it’s not doing enough to engage MORE people in the workforce. The list goes on and on. Yet, NASA still remains a good return on investment, and is one of the few programs that should remain in place. Perhaps it needs to change somewhat with the times, but that’s a subject for another discussion.
The world we work in today is not the world of the 1960s, and the incentives for space exploration are somewhat different. The cost of space flight is high, both in terms of money and human risk. Even the private space industry feels constrained by these factors. In the case of safety, it should be. Can we beat these (and other) challenges? Of course. If we want to. That’s the operative idea.
Take some time this week to celebrate the accomplishments of the 1960s space efforts. They put us on an interesting path. It’s worthy of your attention.