|
|
Post by gezalenko on May 27, 2008 19:42:28 GMT -4
OK. I've decided that we did. How do we resolve that ?
and then again, perhaps it was not beyond the technology of the time.
Who's "We" ? Do you have any evidence at all for this ?
Maybe. But would it not also have been horrible to risk being found out faking it ?
Yes probably, but those weren't the only two options.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 27, 2008 19:45:47 GMT -4
. Yes. of course it was dangerous. Imagine being sent up into space with a rocket capable of nine million pounds of thrust. Three already had. But no one was knew that was going to happen. Any mission had a possibility of failure, but it's not like they didn't go unprepared or recklessly. Any live event has this possibility, but precautions are taken - tests are done on all equipment many times over and astronauts receive thousands of hours of training. That's not the only choices. You could just 'not go' at all if the risks are too great. If Russian had faked it, you can bet that the U.S. and others would have exposed it. The Apollo spacecraft was tracked by amateur and professional trackers throughout the world. Prestige maybe, but certainly not power. Of sorts I guess. Win what again? The cold war? Which lasted almost another twenty years after Apollo? I'm sure that if the Russians had Saturn V rockets, they would have tried to get there before the U.S. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 27, 2008 19:50:11 GMT -4
Stalepie, excuse my curiousity, but at which mission do you think the faking started? Mercury? Gemini? Apollo 8? Apollo 11?
I'm also curious as to what research you have done to come to your conclusion. Is there something specific that you feel would have been impossible to do? Were the rockets not capable of launching them into orbit and further on to the moon? Are there radiation issues that concern you? Does it seem too complicated to have been done?
Oh, and BTW: The reasons you gave would not be ethical at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 27, 2008 19:52:44 GMT -4
To other board members: I know I have no right to say this but, could we be gentle here? Smack me if you want.  |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 27, 2008 20:24:09 GMT -4
My view is that it was good that we faked it and I have two reasons for this.
The traditional order of doing things is first to show evidence whether something was done, then (after showing that it was) coming up with the reasons why. Coming up with the reasons first without knowing whether those reasons were acted upon leads to the second-guessing game you've just started.
It was a very dangerous mission...
Yes. So is crab fishing. So is mountain climbing. So is hang-gliding. More people have died crab fishing than have died exploring space.
...and perhaps beyond the technology of the time.
But that's a matter of testable fact. The people well enough versed in the technology all agree that the technology was sufficient. So you're left with the "danger" aspect. Unfortunately people do very dangerous things all the time, so that doesn't fly.
It would have been horrible to risk so many lives if we could get away with faking it instead. Better to lie than to murder.
But that's the problem. When you set out to fake something, you don't know ahead of time if you're going to succeed.
It's not murder. No one forced the astronauts at gun point to climb into a rocket. The astronauts were test pilots who volunteered for the missions knowing as well as anyone what the risks would be.
Unfortunately lying in this case would have been a federal offense. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in government or in the public was excited about going to the Moon. If NASA had taken $23 billion of public funds ostensibly to fly to the Moon and had wilfully spent it not flying to the Moon, Senators Proxmire and Mondale (at least) would have seen to it that Webb and his cronies went to jail. Nixon also would have loved nothing better than to have cause to accuse his bitter rivals Kennedy and Johnson of wholesale fraud.
It is not unethical to accept a calculated risk. It is unethical to take money for something you didn't do.
If we didn't fake it, perhaps Russia would have instead.
Supposition.
It is good that we tried to win it by faking the landings, because American democracy/republic is better than Russian communism.
Again you beg the question of success. What would it have said for American democracy had the Soviets detected the fakery? How much better a political victory for Soviet communism to show that capitalists are all liars and cheats!
Also it's possible that Russia was glad to realize that the majority of the world bought the story...
A minute ago you argued the U.S. and the Soviets were in a war for the hearts and minds of the world. How would it work then for the Soviets to be glad that the U.S. succeeded in fooling the world at their expense? Remember that the Moon race was a race against the Soviets to the Moon. Either that was a real competition or it wasn't. Make up your mind and argue the point accordingly.
I just wanted to leave a couple of points for why it was ethical to have faked the missions...
Well unfortunately having made your comments in a public forum, you have made them subject to whatever criticism -- kind or merciless -- can be thrown at them.
I don't agree in the least that faking the Moon landings would have been ethical, and your case here is extremely weak and suppositional.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 27, 2008 20:58:27 GMT -4
I'm not really interested in responding. ...and I'm not really interested in the opinions of "seagull" posters. Imagine that.  |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 27, 2008 21:08:52 GMT -4
I'm not really interested in responding. The purpose of this forum is for discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 27, 2008 21:09:47 GMT -4
I'm not really interested in responding. I just wanted to leave a couple of points for why it was ethical to have faked the missions under the circumstances. Thanks. It's an interesting idea. Under this hypothesis, you run into a problem with security: You're faking it because you don't want to hurt anybody, so what do you do with someone who won't play along with the charade? The most fundamental flaw, from the get-go, is that it does not fit into the historical context. Today, we live in a very risk-averse culture. The people who built Apollo were literally the grandsons of pioneers. They could sit at Grandma's feet and here her talk about leaving "the old country" and crossing oceans and deserts. The pioneers faced unknown territory, hostile natives, predators and drought, and they took their children with them. They didn't just scratch out a living, they built a nation. The people who built Apollo were also the sons of those who fought in WWII. Everybody knew somebody who risked all and never came home. The dawn of the Space Age was also a time of experimentation in high-performance aircraft. Flight testing was not a matter of computer simulation - it was a brave, confident, careful and methodical man strapping-on an aluminum airframe and seeing if it could do its job. During the 1950's, at the US Navy's flight test center at Patuxent River, test pilots had a 1-in-4 chance of getting killed during a tour of duty (Chapter 1 of Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff graphically describes this period). Today, our culture believes in "safety first". Back then, they believed that great achievement goes hand-in-hand with great risk. A man on the moon was seen as the ultimate achievement, and they would not have shied away from ultimate risk. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 27, 2008 21:28:01 GMT -4
Gee whiz, I guess it's another "talk among yourselves" thread from this point on.
I don't understand why someone would start a thread and then abandon it.
Oh well...
|
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 27, 2008 21:32:33 GMT -4
I could explain, but I'm not really interested.  |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on May 27, 2008 21:36:23 GMT -4
We knew that many men would die in the process of trying to get there and in so doing we might also film their deaths and air them on live TV. It would have been horrible to risk so many lives if we could get away with faking it instead. Better to lie than to murder. I first read this and wondered how "many" is defined. Three astronauts were killed in the Apollo 1 fire of course. Four astronauts were killed in T-38 accidents but things like bird strikes and adverse weather conditions and mechanical failures are hazards to all aviators, not just astronauts. Except for the Apollo 1 crew, no one was killed in a NASA spacecraft during the Mercury, Gemini or Apollo programs, although there were some close calls. Then I thought, if NASA was faking everything to avoid putting lives at risk, why would the Apollo 1 crew have been put in such a dangerous situation in the first place? Jay said in his commentary on David Milne's article, " In January 1967 some engineers had expressed concern over the perceived hazard, but there wasn't time to re-engineer the test procedure." If their Apollo spacecraft wasn't really going to fly anywhere, why would they need to test it?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 27, 2008 21:42:15 GMT -4
I'm not really interested in responding. I just wanted to leave a couple of points for why it was ethical to have faked the missions under the circumstances. Thanks. It's an interesting idea. Under this hypothesis, you run into a problem with security: You're faking it because you don't want to hurt anybody, so what do you do with someone who won't play along with the charade? The most fundamental flaw, from the get-go, is that it does not fit into the historical context. Today, we live in a very risk-averse culture. The people who built Apollo were literally the grandsons of pioneers. They could sit at Grandma's feet and here her talk about leaving "the old country" and crossing oceans and deserts. The pioneers faced unknown territory, hostile natives, predators and drought, and they took their children with them. They didn't just scratch out a living, they built a nation. The people who built Apollo were also the sons of those who fought in WWII. Everybody knew somebody who risked all and never came home. The dawn of the Space Age was also a time of experimentation in high-performance aircraft. Flight testing was not a matter of computer simulation - it was a brave, confident, careful and methodical man strapping-on an aluminum airframe and seeing if it could do its job. During the 1950's, at the US Navy's flight test center at Patuxent River, test pilots had a 1-in-4 chance of getting killed during a tour of duty (Chapter 1 of Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff graphically describes this period). Today, our culture believes in "safety first". Back then, they believed that great achievement goes hand-in-hand with great risk. A man on the moon was seen as the ultimate achievement, and they would not have shied away from ultimate risk. Quite inspiring CZ! Life was very hard for many immigrants back in their home country. Just think of the hardship and risk of travelling across the ocean two hundred years ago. Packed like sardines, disease and sickness running rampant, rats, crappy food, sailing for weeks...and a high mortality rate. My goodness, even if they arrived here (North America) alive, they still had so much suffering and hardship in front of them. Very brave indeed. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 27, 2008 22:12:05 GMT -4
I have to wonder, when I hear an opinion like this, if it's not in part because today's society is largely irreligious. Do people find it unbelievable that someone would want to risk their life for an amazing opportunity like walking on the moon or for a cause like protecting their country because they no longer believe there's anything after that sacrifice occurs? Is it so hard to believe in risking oneself to do the right thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on May 27, 2008 22:25:30 GMT -4
in so doing we might also film their deaths and air them on live TV. One word: Challenger. ETA: Seagull posters do enjoy kicking the anthill, don't they? To mix my metaphors horribly. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on May 27, 2008 22:50:30 GMT -4
I have to wonder, when I hear an opinion like this, if it's not in part because today's society is largely irreligious. Do people find it unbelievable that someone would want to risk their life for an amazing opportunity like walking on the moon or for a cause like protecting their country because they no longer believe there's anything after that sacrifice occurs? Is it so hard to believe in risking oneself to do the right thing? What does this mean? I'm not religious, I'm not an HB, and if NASA told me I had a seat for the next lunar landing, I'd report for training tomorrow. |
|
