|
|
Buzz Aldrin
What was it like to walk on the moon? On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong landed the lunar module on the Sea of Tranquility. Their subsequent moon walk was seen by billions back on Earth. Aldrin, with a doctorate in astronautics from MIT, was known as Dr. Rendezvous among his co-workers for developing space rendezvous techniques needed to reach the moon. Aldrin's has penned a memoir called "Magnificent Desolation: The Long Journey Home from the Moon.” We talk with Aldrin about his moon trip, his ongoing work to further space tourism, and his personal ups and downs as a star of America's space program.
|
|
4 COMMENTS SO FAR
|
June 30, 2009
9:44 AM
|
Coffeeblack said:
You want manned mission to Mars, SEND TERMINALLY ILL PEOPLE - - SAVE THE FUEL OF THE RETURN TRIP, and Part of the weight saved covers plenty of supplies for the crew to live out their lives comfortably.
|
 (0)  (0)
|
|
June 30, 2009
10:53 PM
|
Tony Burt said:
Well I would certainly be amongst the first volunteers if NASA were seriously seeking decrepit astronauts with limited "shelf life" for such a mission.
The lift off would be a bit gruelling (3 Gs) but I would probably survive that. The trip would probably take about 9 months or so and that length of time weightless presents physiological problems on landing. However that might be mitigated somewhat as the gravity on Mars is about 60% less than Earth.
However astronauts are chosen for, amongst other things, their physical fitness because they are expected to do physically demanding tasks that require such attributes. The terminally ill are in the main, already debilitated and thus would probably be useless once they got to Mars.
Lets face it the incentive to undertake all those experiments that the guys in Houston demand would be much diminished as our personal "sell by" dates approaches.
Nice idea, indeed a glorious fantasy, but that's one hope I really cannot believe in.
Cheers
Tony Burt
|
(0) (0)
|
|
July 3, 2009
9:38 PM
|
Coffeeblack said:
Physically demanding?
Tony, they are in, as you so astutely pointed out, a low-gravity environment. And, they are backed up by a Gadgeteering community second only to " Q."
Chores like placing a deflated basketball-like device beneath a Rover to get it unstuck, or changing out a solar panel - - I'd guess any '98 pound weakling' could handle such physical demands. It's not as if we'd be asking them to dig trenches with pick and shovel, is it? Also, with the space and weight allowance available, you wouldn't be limited to two or three people - - you could send whole Teams along.
You may be falsely equating 'Terminal' with 'Debilitated' - - someone with a life expectancy in the range of five years may very well have considerable 'strength-hours' available to them for chores associated with the initial setup of equipment and such.
As for any 'specialized knowledge' required, though it would take a few minutes for answers, or directions, from back on earth to reach them, pretty much anybody with more common sense than a politician should be capable of running the machinery and computers necessary to respond to challenges of most sorts.
Lastly, consider it from a humane perspective - - people reentering earth's gravity after only Somewhat extended zero and low gravity missions already experience considerable difficulty. After years out there, the return might well prove fatal to them.
No, I think the 'one way ticket' makes a lot more sense.
And, let's face up to it - - the energy it takes to get off of the earth completely prohibits such loopy concepts as The overpopulated earth sending masses of 'humanity' to colonize 'space,' with any currently imaginable technology.
There's plenty of 'space' available right here waiting for us to colonize - - that 72 % of the earth's surface we call 'the ocean.' Our neglect of this resource is criminally stupid.
Of course, that would take cooperation, and compassion, and massively less greed than we seem capable of.
Humanity is proceeding like yeast: replicating itself unchecked, producing more and more toxic waste as it eats up all the 'sugar.'
We're doomed, and it won't be long. Wasn't it a privilege to have come along while there were a few resources not yet plundered?
We got to see the best of it, Tony. Wasn't it a grand moment to have lived through?!!
|
(0) (0)
|
|
July 4, 2009
3:14 PM
|
Tony Burt said:
You are right I did falsely equate 'Terminal' with 'Debilitated' worse, I even used the word 'Decrepit'. I should have stuck by my use of the more apt retailing metaphor of 'shelf-life' and 'sell by date'.
My error was to draw a general conclusion from my limited personal experience. We all tend to do it, but it still leads to faulty logic.
I was confusing the the reality of my situation and qualifications with the delicious fantasy you presented.
Your final paragraph I feel was rather overly pessimistic. I tend to be more sanguine on such matters.
The Malthusian Catastrophe argument was wrong in 1825 and despite the scurrilous Paul Ehrlick's attempts to resuscitate Malthusian ideas in 1968 they remain erroneous.
Actually Thomas Malthus was far less apocalyptic in his prophesies of doom for mankind than Ehrlich who said in his book "The Population Bomb":
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."
Ehrlich mistakenly assumed that the exponential rise in population cannot be matched by the available resources, in particular food, which he considered in 1968 to be already at a natural limit. Time has proven Thomas Malthus and Ehrlichs ideas to be apocryphal. I guess prophets of doom will always be able to sell books or films, consider the success of Al Gore and even the odious Michael Moore.
Demographers seem to be predicting that the population will level off at 9 billion or so by mid-century, the inevitable consequence of the drop in the rate of population growth since 1963 when it reached its peak of 2.2% per year. It is now about half that and and furthermore the birth rate has levelled at about 134 million births per year and predicted to stay constant. Births still exceed deaths for the moment but the difference between the two has a reducing trend line hence the prediction of only a 9 billion peak population by mid century. ie much below the likely calorie and water capacity of the earth to sustain.
Your yeast analogy falls short I believe.
Furthermore the demograghers may have further favorable adjustments to make as more and more of the poor populations of the world learn to embrace the logic of Adam Smith over Karl Marx and move from shortages causing mass starvation to abundance. This has been demonstrated by Asia most dramatically. With the adoption of technologies such as genetic engineering.
The NeoMalthusiasn doomsayers repeatedly underestimate the ingenuity of their own species.
Also as the rapidly growing middle and working classes in the newly emerging successful economies particularly in Asia the inclination of the newly acquired wealth leads naturally to "the pursuit of happiness" and its natural corollary of smaller families.
As other nations follow the Asian lead I am confidant that my son and future generations will each consider themselves, like you, to be living through the best of times.
Cheers
Tony Burt
|
(0) (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Post your comment
|
You must be a subscriber and logged in to post a comment. Login | Register
|
|
|
