Its because the US is broke...
..break out the rattling tin
The very suit in which pioneering 'naut Neil Armstrong made his historic moonwalks is to go on show to the public – thanks in large part to a successful crowdfunding appeal for half a million bucks that will bankroll the exhibition. The Smithsonian Institution said earlier this month that it hoped to raise the cash to fund the …
It's a very sad state of affairs. I'm not sure it's because we're broke, but more from politics. There's some very influential people running amok in Congress who base things like funding on their own, shall we say, twisted view of the world. At this point in time, I'm surprised NASA hasn't been done away with just from the sky fairy botherers in Congress.
This post has been deleted by its author
"I'm not sure it's because we're broke"
You're kidding me right? Are you spending your life blindfolded and wearing a set of Brilliant Industries (tm) La-La headphones(*) ?
The US has national debt in the TRILLIONS of dollars, amounting to more that $57,000 per person.
(* http://www.tvspots.tv/video/20625/egg--la-la-fingers )
This post has been deleted by its author
"@vapor I suggest you say that to Buzz Aldrin personally."
I'd happily tell Buzz that *nobody* walked on the moon.
Shuffled, bounced, hopped, stumbled a lot, fell on their butts, ECU and faceplates. But walk? Not a single step.
We're not built to walk properly in such a low gravity, while wearing a suit and ECU that weighs twice as much as the wearer.
NASA suppressed the lunar follies until rather recently, only those with a security clearance had access to the hilarious results of creatures evolved for 1G trying to operate under 17% of that gravity.
But, in the astronauts favor, if I were in that situation, it'd be likely I'd accidentally launch myself to an inconvenient altitude, then land on a nice, soft rock - faceplate first.
What we need now is a crowdfunder for OJ Simpson's spacesuit from Capricorn 1, which expressed the truth of the 'Moon landings'.
Not that I'll be throwing cash in either way, it is a disgrace that the Smithsonian had to resort to Kickstarter for this, I am not Nord Americano, but respect the achievement.
I wonder where all of the LEMs or LLMs (they did change the name) are now? None had solar escape velocity, if Apollo 13's is still out there, it must be wandering around the asteroid belt, at least. by now.
The others, eaten by or on the way to the Sun.
"I wonder where all of the LEMs or LLMs (they did change the name) are now? "
The LEM's crew capsule was sent to the lunar surface after the astronauts re-entered the command module.
One was actually used in a lunar seismic experiment.
The upper stages are sharing a similar orbit to Earth, one was briefly captured as a second moon in an unstable orbit until it was ejected from our orbit. Their velocities were Earth escape - barely, so we share a similar orbit.
The Lunar module lower sections (descent stage) were left behind on the lunar surface when the astronauts returned to lunar orbit. These were designed to act as "launchpads" for the ascent stages. The original plan for the ascent stages was to be abandon them in lunar orbit after return to the Command module and this was done for Apollos 10 and 11. However from Apollo 12 onwards it was decided to de orbit the ascent stages and impact them on the surface to create artificial "Moon quakes" which could be recorded on the seismometers that were left on the surface of the moon. The only two that this did not happen with were Apollo 13 and Apollo 16. Apollo 13's LM was bought back from the Moon as a "lifeboat" and burned up in the Earth's atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean after separation from the command module. With Apollo 16 control of the LM was lost at jettison so the impact manoeuvre was abandoned an the LM left in lunar orbit.
For the vehicles left in lunar orbit their reprieve was short lived. One of the discoveries of the Apollo programmes was that the Moon's gravity field is not uniform, there seem to be "mass concentrations" that cause the field to vary significantly at different locations. This becomes difficult for plotting a spacecraft's orbit (indeed this is how they were found in the first place). Because of these variations the ascent stages eventually crashed into the surface of the Moon.
Hope this of use to you.
"The Republicans have plenty of money to hand out to mega-corps, but not enough for food stamps, apparently."
I hate to burst your bubble, but the US food assistance program has mushroomed quite a lot since Omama took office. So I guess you're suggesting those horrible Reps can't understand that we need even MORE food stamps! I swear, the nerve of those people!
i.e. Alan Shepherd's - famously flooded with wee after the short suborbital lob got stretched beyond endurance by hours of pre-launch holds.
"If you put your ear to his helmet you can hear the distant roar of a Redstone rocket, and if you put your nose you can ... appreciate just how often even rocket science proceeds through trial and error!"
This post has been deleted by its author
Not much of an issue here. The issue is not the purchase of the suit. The issue merely is the high cost of very-effective preservation essential for *public* display of such a priceless artefact.
The Smithsonian is not a federal agency. It is a private entity. Like any other museum, it raises funds for its displays. Happens every day.
Moreover, no doubt the Smithy anyway has had custody of the suit most of these years since August 1969. But, again, the cost of effective-preservation public display of such a priceless artefact is *much* higher than effective-preservation private storage.
Yours truly, the long, long, long-ago operations officer of a relatively-small USAF museum.
This is somewhat backward looking article.
The private space industry in the US has grown some teeth and muscle in the past two decades. A fully homegrown small business has emerged around space activity in the US.
Unless you are plugged into the enthusiasm and creativity that is flowing in this newly emerging community of movers and shakers, I am afraid we will be looking to an old and obselete view of how space activity is done, especially in the US.
Several visionary, small companies have been successful in garnering private investors and venture capital in these past few years and the trend is looking better, every day.
Space is the place to be, it seems, and government knows this, and is offering help as and when needed, as a healthy space activity sector grows wings.
I just learned of the tragic disposal of many of the diapers of Astronauts and Cosmonauts. Not only do these historic, priceless items contain the DNA of our heros, but they also contain something of their last few meals. Surely, we can muster up a few hundred thousand USD$ necessary for the climate-controlled preservation of these artifacts.
Is it just me that thinks that putting such charity payments to the "dig out your wallet" test is actually probably better for the public purse, and for those charities (including museums) that deserve it?
I have zero interest in preserving some stolen foreign work of art at humongous expense, or some state house out in the sticks owned by Lord-whoever who's given up paying for it, for instance, but would happily pay a little one-off to preserve a space suit, or Bletchley, etc.
Given how complex and expensive a real spacesuit is, at best it will be "looks pretty darned similar from a distance, under the right lighting and viewing angles" (because unless you're Stanley Kubrick nobody will bankroll detail beyond that)
Is 'nappy' a banned word? Sorry, the version of English I learnt (a little) does not include 'diaper' as a natural word.
Babies wear nappies, old people with no control wear 'incontinence pads', if I recall correctly from overseas.
Not to saying anything against 'diaper', but it is not how I learnt to speak in English, and I am not going to use US dialect by force, nobody else says 'diaper'.
So, Lisa Nowak's astro-nappy that she used to avoid toilet breaks on a 600-km dash.