[X] My Assistant

[DDAVIS]

What remains of the spacecraft designed to propel American astronauts to the
moon? How are they being saved for future generations?

Speaking of libraries and artifacts, I think the biggest collections of Apollo related hardware are in Houston, Washington DC, and Cape Canaveral and other NASA centers. A fair amount of stuff was sent to the Kansas 'Cosmosphere' museum. By the time the majority of people no longer believe we went to the Moon, when those who remember are dead, the artifacts will increase in importance in establishing the objective reality of Apollo.
The problem is having them in 'target' cities, where they get destroyed in wars and catastriphes.
Rome housed many art treasures looted from Greece, which perished along with much of the city in a series of large fires. Constantinople had a great collection of remaining treasures from the ancient world, including the statue of Zeus removed from it's temple in Olympia, one of the wonders of the world. These were housed in a palace which burned down destroying everything inside.
The collection of artifacts in one place in a major city is thus the last stage of their existance.
The Cosmosphere collection will ultimately be the longest surviving collection of space hardware, and other collections should consider moving to that region, especially great works of art. This goes for London, Paris, and other 'jewel' cities.
Assuming we never return to the Moon (I won't believe it's going to happen until the landers are actually being built) we will be asking an increasingly greater degree of suspension of disbelief from future generations that such a miracle was once possible. One day being able to reach Low Earth orbit could look like going to the Moon appears to us!

Don

[dvandorn]

other Doug:

The answer is to carefully read the Holy Words of the Blessed Pratchett, and seek out one's own Small Gods.

Oook?

Bob Shaw

Oook. Definitely.

-the other Doug

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Phiewwwww!
Great contributions all! I did not expected to launch a discution on the role of religions in science, just taking some examples in History on how thing worked. I will try to bring some bits of answers, not reply in details.






DDavis, if one day we come to a point (I hope not) where science and space exploration will be only past history, so what you call artifacts of the Apollo missions will be what in religion we name relics: very moving remnant and testimonies of marvelous past events... And if there is still an anti-science movement, they will say that the artifacts where fabricated.


ljk4-1 I much appreciated your quotes of Carl Sagan, that I did not knew before. This, together with Dvandorn reply, could lead to a scientific approach of spirituality. This is a far-reached and largely encompassing topic, and I brough my stone on my personnal site http://www.shedrupling.org, where interested people could continue the debate (Doug, I do not know if you will allow such a discution, which is far of the topic, but really interesting for the topic. So excuse me if I give my personnal URL).





Dvandorn I really share your point of view about spirituality, that we must pass over the state of dogmatic belief. Today one of the major stakes in religions is preciselly the responsible criticism of the secondary dogma, to arrive to a state of appropriated spirituality rather than blind dogmas. This is really interesting, and many works are going on about religion history, questionning the reality of historical facts, social or neurological effects of spirital practices, etc.
But this is really valuable if we do not lose the real basis of spirituality (for instance compassion, the basis of Christianism). And for a scientifically cultivated mind, this arises real challenges: for instance in a path such as Mahayanan buddhism, being really persuaded that miracles are possible is a necessary ingredient for success. And there is something like that in pagans too, as far as I know, for instance the idea of spirits of places.






Then David and Dvandorn had a really interesting discution on how things were going on in the 6th Century, when "christian' ignorance prevailed over antic "science". I just add somme comments:

-If antic science did not surpassed its level, it is because they did not had what we call today the scientific method. They were doing science exactly the same way others were doing religion: dogma and beliefs. There was even a Greek "epistemological principle" as what once somethings seems logical, it does not need to be proven! It is Galileo who unlocked the situation, with experimental science. It happened only once in the history of mankind. But it could have happened if antiquity if it had not regressed.

-I call anybody not to confuse the CONTENT of religions (such as Jesus's call for loving each others like brothers) and how religions were made (as dogmatic and normalizing opression systems). It is really two very different things, and confusing them is the root of many evils today (Look in USSR). But, in antic times, the same dogmatic way of thinking also prevailed in science, like dvandorn commented, and it is why antic science did not surpassed the level of what was immediatelly checkable in an antique workshop.

-the statement "Catholics destroyed antic science" is a shortcut. There was really forbiddings, persecutions and destructions, but things evolved in a much complex way. Like David explained, there was a whole context, mainly of economy depression in the 6the century. But is this context really unrelated to the prevalent fundamentalist power and ideas? Even when there was no intentionnal destruction of past artifacts and culture, the fact is that it was deemed a much lower value, and lost from lack of care.

-David says interesting thing about the evolution of sciences, which relies on the available technology needed, the later relying on the economy wealth available. For instance the mechanical calculator was invented in the 17th century by Pascal, with the technos available at this time; but economically useable machines appeared only in the 20th century. The computer was invented in the 19th century by Lord Babbage, but only vacuum tubes made it feasible, and only integrated circuits made it economically affordable for everybody. And very large machines like the cyclotrons can be built only by societies with a large and wealthy industrial network. And one of the main ideological stakes of the Apollo program was to demonstrate the superiority of capitalist economy over the communist economy... Perhaps the failure of the later is a pain for everybody who tries to promote economy systems based on altruism rather than on competition.


At last thank you all for expressing such interesting and varied points of view, and even conflicting points of views while keeping courteous and constructive.

[dvandorn]

This whole thread reminds me of the joke about the guy who was dissatisfied with his service at a restaurant, and made his complaints loud and long to everyone within earshot. The maitre'd comes out, talks to the man, replaces every dish with one done *exactly* to the customer's specifications, and generally is the compleat host, making sure that everything is now perfect.

"Is everything now satisfactory?" the maitre'd asked.

"Yeah," grumbled the guy, "except... I was happier with my complaint!"

As long as people are happier with their complaint than with having their complaints satisfied, it will be a challenging world in which to live -- especially if you have a habit of *thinking* and - even more dangerous - questioning "what everyone knows."

Please recall the words of someone who knew a little something about Mankind's striving: "...Mankind is more disposed to suffer what evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." (Extra credit for those who can identify the writer and the document.) Also, note the correlation of that statement to my earlier comments about the scientific method, and having the courage to leave behind those theories that have been disproven by factual, empirical evidence and thereby "abolishing the forms" to which we have become accustomed.

It sickens me to *death* that there are people out there who refuse to believe that Mankind has realized one of its fondest dreams -- to walk the surface of another *world*. That people can be motivated to give their energies and their beliefs to *denying* such a colossal achievement -- that people would prefer to believe that it must have been faked, in some tawdry scam.

How dysfunctional do you have to be to insist that something as *wonderful* as this could never have happened, must have been a hoax, as if the very possibility of it actually having happened is some kind of *threat* to them?

And what kind of Tomorrow can we expect in a world in which a significant percentage of the people *are* that dysfunctional?

-the other Doug

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

It sickens me to *death* that there are people out there who refuse to believe that Mankind has realized one of its fondest dreams -- to walk the surface of another *world*.  That people can be motivated to give their energies and their beliefs to *denying* such a colossal achievement -- that people would prefer to believe that it must have been faked, in some tawdry scam.


-the other Doug

!!!

can say nothing but agree with you

[Phil Stooke]

A great discussion. If only the people who need to read it were reading it...

If anybody has not read Pale Blue Dot, it's well worth it. Too bad about the cover, though - it would look much better with one of "our" pictures on it.

Phil

[chris]

A great discussion.  If only the people who need to read it were reading it... 

If anybody has not read Pale Blue Dot, it's well worth it.  Too bad about the cover, though - it would look much better with one of "our" pictures on it. 

Phil

I found Andrew Chaikin's book "A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts" to be utterly captivating. The descriptions the astronauts gave of being on the moon were so vivid that I don't think any fictional account could possibly compare.

Chris

[ljk4-1]

I think it is very important that the science, events, and languages of our world be preserved for the future. The Long Now Foundation is doing something about this.

http://www.longnow.org/

To put this in a space perspective, the Rosetta comet probe has a copy of their language disk on the vehicle, to be found some day either by our descendants or someone else:

http://www.rosettaproject.org/live

And the two Voyager probes have the famous Interstellar Records with snippets of 55 human languages, along with various sounds and carefully selected images of our world and species. It is estimated they will survive at least one billion years in interstellar space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

Regarding the discussion on science and religion, this guy named Hippocrates summed it up quite well about 2,500 years ago:

"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates

[um3k]

Regarding the discussion on science and religion, this guy named Hippocrates summed it up quite well about 2,500 years ago:

"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates

Was he a time traveller or something?

[chris]

Was he a time traveller or something?

No, just a rationalist. An inverse way of putting his statement is Arthur C Clarke's observation that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Chris

[ljk4-1]

I learned one sad thing from this paper: More people saw Elvis on TV in 1973 than the Apollo 11 mission.


Paper (*cross-listing*): physics/0508183
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:41:44 GMT (341kb)

Title: The Road Less Traveled: Non-traditional Ways of Communicating Astronomy
with the Public

Authors: Michael J. West (University of Hawaii)

Comments: Invited talk to appear in Communicating Astronomy with the Public
2005, eds. E.I. Robson and L.L. Christensen, 2005, ESA/Hubble Publishing, in
press; 10 pages, 5 figures, pdf only
Subj-class: Popular Physics
\\
In an age of media saturation, how can astronomers succeed in grabbing the
public's attention to increase awareness and understanding of astronomy? Here I
discuss some creative alternatives to press releases, public lectures,
television programs, books, magazine articles, and other traditional ways of
bringing astronomy to a wide audience. By thinking outside the box and
employing novel tools - from truly terrible sci-fi movies, to modern
Stonehenges, to music from the stars - astronomers are finding effective new
ways of communicating the wonders of the universe to people of all ages.

\\ ( http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0508183 , 341kb)

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

ljk4-1,

good concern, but I shall read the paper later.

In my country France, there are some science astronomy TV programs; but they are usually late the evening so that only leisure (rich) people can really follow them. This subject is deemed non-interesting...

Once in Toulouse there was a science feast with a green laser shooting at the sky at night, many people noticed it and went to see what was happening. Other interesting moments are Moon eclipses, and Sun eclipses too. I remember in 1998 the path of the centre of the shadow was overcrowded.

There is something more in astronomy than for instance in physics, something that astronomy shares only with paleontology: our origins, our home planet, the universe in which we are living. Personnally I find these concerns really moving, as the great love affair in my life.


Sci-fi movies can be good as movies, but usually they are bad or very bad in a science point of view. Pity, great pity, as if one day somebody makes a great science movie, people will be disapointed not to see hyperespace or plastic clones, or to see spaceships needing thousands of years to reach a star.

[ljk4-1]

Does Magnificent Desolation give Apollo Moon Hoax conspiracists some inadvertent ammunition?

New U.S. Release

Posted: Wed., Oct. 5, 2005, 5:33pm PT

Magnificent Desolation: Walking On The Moon
(Docu -- Imax)

By JOE LEYDON

Arguably the most avid space buff and NASA booster among contemporary
pop culture icons, Tom Hanks enjoyed significant commercial and critical
success through his involvement with Ron Howard's "Apollo 13" and his
own "From the Earth to the Moon" HBO miniseries. But his third time
isn't a charm: "Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon" is an
earnest but insubstantial Imax 3-D spectacle that, even at 40 minutes,
seems unduly padded. Obviously aimed at schoolchildren likely to be
bused in for matinee screenings, docu offers grown-ups very little that
is fresh or insightful, and too much that is facile or hokey.

Pic comes off a hodgepodge of breathless hero worship, cutesy history
lessons and melodramatic re-enactments, with a side order of vocational
guidance for impressionable youngsters. During an early montage of kids
being grilled about NASA history, it's meant to be hilarious that most
of them know little about the history of U.S. space exploration. (At
least one confuses Neil Armstrong with Lance Armstrong.)

At the end, however, narrator Hanks sounds a dead-serious note of
inspirational encouragement when he asks: Who will be the next explorer
to walk on the moon? "Maybe that person is watching right now," he says.
"Maybe the future walker is you."

"Magnificent Desolation" pays heartfelt tribute to 12 Apollo astronauts
who visited the moon between 1969 and 1972. But the actual missions are
represented mostly in fuzzy TV news clips shown in tiles that
sporadically "float" across the massive Imax screen.

Director Mark Cowen places greater emphasis on aggressively dramatic
re-creations, which are used to illustrate Apollo mission highlights --
and, not incidentally, fill the entire frame with striking 3-D imagery.
(Tech values are undeniably impressive.)

And while pic does include a few key recordings of actual astronaut
dialogue, well-known actors (including, most effectively, Morgan Freeman
and Bill Paxton) are employed to read salient quotes by the real-life
moon men throughout pic. The unfortunate result is, the slick artifice
tends to overshadow the real astronauts.

Ironically, verisimilitude of the Imax-size re-enactments indirectly
lends a kind of credence to long-circulated conspiracy theories
(mockingly acknowledged elsewhere in pic) that the Apollo voyages didn't
really occur, but actually were faked on a Hollywood soundstage.

And speaking of fake: Hanks takes a shameless approach to revving aud
interest by dramatizing a "What if?" scenario involving unforeseen
catastrophe during a moon mission.

Title refers to Apollo astronaut Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin's description of
lunar landscape.

[dvandorn]

Does Magnificent Desolation give Apollo Moon Hoax conspiracists some inadvertent ammunition?

I don't think so. The kind of computer graphics necessary to do such realistic re-creations of Apollo lunar surface operations simply didn't exist in 1969. They did exist in 1997, when Hanks' "From the Earth to the Moon" was produced, but were too expensive for a TV-miniseries, and so the effects on that former work, while good, were nowhere near as accurate as those in this latest effort.

I'm not just talking about needing to hook up a LOT of 1969-era computers -- I'm saying that the primary ability to manipulate images digitally did not exist then. Anywhere. The *only* way to do special effects back then was entirely optical, cutting and reprojecting images into composites. There wasn't a system available, anywhere in the world, that could digitally manipulate images to the extent necessary to even produce a single still frame from the new IMAX film.

Of course, if you're so steeped in self-doubt that you cannot allow yourself to believe the actual facts, then this fact, too, can be easily dismissed. I don't see my arguments changing the minds of any of those who believe in this conspiracy fantasy. But I also don't see this film swaying anyone with half a brain away from the side of factual rationalism, over to the "dark side"...

-the other Doug

[tty]

I don't think so.  The kind of computer graphics necessary to do such realistic re-creations of Apollo lunar surface operations simply didn't exist in 1969.

You don't think a little detail like that would stop a conspiracy nut do You? I saw a guy a couple of days ago that seriously suggested that a Snark missile was used for the 9-11 attack on Pentagon. You should think that the fact that the last Snarks were scrapped in 1961, that they carried a 5 megaton warhead and had an average circular error of more than 10 km would have made this rather unlikely but it apparently didn't faze this guy.

tty