RIP The Last Man On The Moon

by Bryan

10 comments

1 Shirt { 01.17.17 at 10:39 pm }

We’ll be back. As soon as the Chinese land on the moon a furious effort will be made for Mars

2 Kryten42 { 01.18.17 at 3:00 am }

NASA put up a good pic on Twitter. 🙂 Another amazing man gone. But again, he was a member of a small & unique group.

Most of us could hope to achieve half as much. Rest in Peace Gene. You did more than most. 🙂

3 Bryan { 01.18.17 at 10:29 pm }

Shirt, I have real doubts that we have the ability to mount a major effort like that any more, But I would love it if it occurred.

On Apollo 10 he piloted the lander to about 8 miles above the moon’s surface and had to turn around, as that was the final test before the Apollo 11 landing.It’s nice that he got to go back and make a landing, unfortunately the last one.

4 Kryten42 { 01.19.17 at 2:45 am }

But that’s *the THING*! It’s the context! If one truly understands the level of technology in the 50’s & 60’s, the whole space program is enough to make just about anyone believe in miracles! 😆 But, I think that it was more to do with the caliber of the people involved at all levels that made it work! Because they knew just how near impossible it was. These days, it should be relatively simple to mount a lunar expedition. Part of the problem I think is that it’s all been trivialized to the point of complete carelessness!

People like Cernan, Glen & the others during the Apollo missions were not just good men, they were incredibly brave & intelligent. What they did was extremely amazing! And yet, ask most people today (especially those born after the 60’s or 70’s) and they just shrug & maybe say. “Yeah, that was cool I guess.” Because they really are ignorant & lack any sense of proportion or perspective. And yes, I am probably somewhat biased as an Engineer that has worked in Aerospace. *shrug* But then again, they are a big part of the reason i became an Engineer in the first place! 🙂 As a kid, I got all the magazines about the Space program with my pocket money (most were around 20c then, especially the monthly issued ones). I still have some of them. 🙂

5 Kryten42 { 01.19.17 at 6:30 am }

Here’s just a single example of what I mean (and I have many). 🙂

First. The Lead Programmer was a WOMAN! *SHOCK* In the 60’s! Not that most people knew or even heard her name until recently. And look at the stack of code! ALL hand coded! In a relatively short period of time!

Second. Seriously, can you imagine anyone doing that today? And making it work (with the same tools Margaret had)? Not a chance! LOL And she wasn’t the only woman that NASA relied upon (and I do mean *RELIED*!)

Here’s another: Judith Love Cohen

By fifth grade, kids started paying Cohen to do their math homework. In junior high school, she was the only girl in intermediate algebra. In high school, she won a state scholarship to Brooklyn College and thought about becoming a math teacher. But her guidance counselor told her that girls don’t go into math or science.

“You know, Judy,” the 66-year-old Cohen remembers her counselor telling her, “I think you ought to go to a nice finishing school and learn to be a lady.”

Instead, Cohen earned engineering degrees at USC and worked on NASA projects.

Cohen’s first book in 1991, “You Can Be a Woman Engineer,” traces her arc from a girl who had never heard of female engineers to a woman who led a team of engineers on the design for NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope.

Another woman, Ann Maybury, also started on the Apollo program, who became the Project Manager for Computer Systems on the Hubble Telescope.

And many others. 🙂 Most of the men have long been known, of course.

6 Bryan { 01.19.17 at 3:20 pm }

My point Kryten is that we lack the physical infrastructure to build the components necessary for the mission. We don’t have any Saturn Vs in the inventory and no one willing to pay to have them built. If we can’t summon up the will to fix our roads and bridges, we are definitely not going to pay to build the equipment for a mission to the Moon, or Mars.

7 Kryten42 { 01.19.17 at 5:26 pm }

Sure, I understand that. The point is, they didn’t have that in the 50’s/60’s either! Everything had to be created from scratch. But even though it has been done before, apparently they can’t do it again now. And they don’t have the excuses they had then either! Most of the tech now to design & manufacture are far ahead of what was available then. Then they had to make the machines to make the parts for the machines… etc.

Back then, they just did whatever had to be done. Now, they just have excuses why things can’t be done! And most are disingenuous at best. Most people just wants the *quick & easy fix*! It’s pathetic.

I had a team that designed award winning machines considered by the entire industry as impossible (even the Japanese)! And that was because of what I learned about doing the *imposible* from the Apollo program! Now it’s “Forget it. It’s not practical”. Or “Look, can we work on something we can sell next Month?” Or “No way! Who’s going to pay for it?”

8 Kryten42 { 01.19.17 at 5:56 pm }

Here’s a couple (of many) examples:

Now (DOA):
After Rough Descent, Europe’s Mars Lander Is Probably Dead

Then (Voyager 1 & 2 still going strong):
NASA’s Voyager Probes Still Healthy After Nearly 4 Decades in Space

“The engineering challenges are extremely unique to Voyager,” Dodd said. “You’re operating instruments below temperatures that we can’t even measure. Challenges of finding out if we turn on a component that’s next to a hydrazine line, would that hydrazine line freeze or not. We don’t know.

“Another unique challenge to it is that the engineers who built this are retired, some have passed away, you need to get people like Charley out of retirement to come and talk to us,” Dodd added. “It’s a challenge engineering-wise, it’s a challenge from a knowledge standpoint of what people know. And that’s what makes this project fun.”

So, some still have the drive, wonder, and attitude. Thankfully. 🙂 Though sadly, their knowledge seems to have skipped a few things. *shrug*

9 Kryten42 { 01.19.17 at 6:57 pm }

PS. I’m not disagreeing or arguing with you m8. I understand what you’re saying.

I’m simply heartily sick of the pathetic excuse for *Humanity* today. And with good reason & just cause.

There is absolutely zero excuse for any of it. Though, I well know the reasons for it. As do you. There is a solution. The problem is that it’s not guaranteed to fix things. And it’s not exactly *socially acceptable* (as primarily defined by those causing the problem. Thought ironically, they reserve the right to use said *solution* whenever they see fit.)

The search for DNC staffer Seth Rich’s killer continues with billboards and website

*shrug*

I posted the quote from Dodd above because she apparently doesn’t see the awesome irony of her statement! Unless she was joking… I don’t have enough data to determine that. Safer to go with *self irony* usually.

10 Bryan { 01.19.17 at 10:59 pm }

The problem for the US is that there have been no jobs for the necessary engineers for some time and you have the corporations telling Congress that they need H1b visas because there are no Americans available [other than the people who were just laid off because the H1bs will be cheaper.] Experienced people lose their jobs, and new factories are built in other countries because the US is considered ‘too expensive’. The ‘cost of US labor excuse’ is strange considering that foreign automakers are building plants in the US while the domestic manufacturers are heading to Mexico.

We could do it, but we lack the vision and will. We have an economy run by people who won’t look beyond the next three months. When you have managers arguing that a three-year ROI is too long for a system that will last two decades, you have lost the argument. When the life span of senior executives is measured in quarters instead of years or decades, don’t expect to launch an effort that could take ten years.

We are losing institutional memory by leaps and bound with down sizing and out sourcing, but executives don’t seem to understand the importance of the issue.