Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Historical greatness

Gerard has several great posts commemorating the Apollo 11 moon landing (link to the main page, just scroll) over at his joint—along with one on an anniversary of a rather more sordid, horrific, and disgusting sort—with links to other essays and lots of inspiring photos. This one is my personal fave:

After the 1972 conclusion of the Apollo program, a group of about 30 NASA thoughtleaders sequestered themselves for a few days on Caltech’s sunny campus. They reviewed what they had accomplished and tried to grapple with exactly how they had pulled off the challenge of the century: landing humans on the lunar surface and returning them safely to Earth on an absurd deadline.

Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the moon, attended most of their sessions in relative silence. While known to be quiet, he was never what someone would call shrinking or invisible. His thoughtful presence carried significant weight in any meeting. Armstrong was not a typical test pilot turned astronaut. “I am, and ever will be,” he once said, “a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer.”

After everyone else had finished speaking at the Caltech gathering, Armstrong calmly rose and went to a chalkboard. He drew four bell-type curves, spaced slightly apart, and labeled them: Leadership, Threat, Economy and Talent. And he said to the room, “My thought is, when you get all these lined up, you can’t stop something really big from happening.” Indeed, the early 1960s had it all: a bold (and in some ways, desperate) president; the threat of the Soviet Union; flush federal coffers; and an unprecedented number of college-educated youngsters. When the curves aligned, Armstrong suggested that an Apollo could rise. According to Gerry Griffin, engineer, flight director and eventual director of the Johnson Space Center, everyone in the room was nodding in agreement, as if to say “Of course, that’s it.”

The analysis of rarely aligned curves can help explain why we haven’t yet sent humans back into the cosmos. But four peaks fail to fully capture the miracle: 400,000 souls uniting in peacetime on a project so ambitious as to appear ludicrous. As humanity makes ample noise about restarting these journeys to other worlds, it’s worth looking under Apollo’s hood and asking the surviving engineers how they did it. Based on scores of recent interviews, their most frequent and fervent responses follow.

All of them fascinating, I assure you. Meanwhile, Steyn ponders our sad inability to repeat the feat, much less outdo it:

When After America came out, I was booked on “Fox & Friends” to talk it over with Brian Kilmeade. Sitting next to Brian on the couch waiting to get going, I watched Steve Doocy across the studio link to an item on the space shuttle Enterprise beginning its journey to whichever museum it’s wound up at. Steve called it “historic”, and, as I remarked to Brian, pity the nation whose greatness becomes “historic” – whose spacecraft exist only in museums. There’s a passage in After America on just that theme:

In 1961, before the eyes of the world, President Kennedy had set American ingenuity a very specific challenge—and put a clock on it:

‘This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.’

That’s it. No wiggle room. A monkey on the moon wouldn’t count, nor an unmanned drone, nor a dune buggy that can’t take off again but transmits grainy footage back to Houston as it rusts up in the crater it came to rest in. The only way to win the bet is with a real-live actual American standing on the surface of the moon planting the Stars and Stripes. Even as it happened, the White House was so cautious that William Safire wrote President Nixon a speech to be delivered in the event of disaster:

‘Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace…’

Yet America did it.

It was not a sure thing. In 1961 the Soviets had it all over the Americans in the space race: They had already reached the moon, with the unmanned flight Luna 2, and they had put a man in space, Yuri Gagarin. Gagarin and the cosmonauts were inspirational figures well beyond the Warsaw Pact. By contrast, all the US unmanned missions had been failures, and their astronauts were earthbound – or sub-orbital at best. Kennedy was cautioned against his moon speech on the grounds that he was setting America up for very public humiliation.

But he chose to go ahead.

And now? From After America:

Four decades later, Bruce Charlton, professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham in England, wrote that “that landing of men on the moon and bringing them back alive was the supreme achieve- ment of human capability, the most difficult problem ever solved by humans.” That’s a good way to look at it: the political class presented the boffins with a highly difficult and specific problem, and they solved it—in eight years. Charlton continued:

‘Forty years ago, we could do it—repeatedly—but since then we have not been to the moon, and I suggest the real reason we have not been to the moon since 1972 is that we cannot any longer do it. Humans have lost the capability.

‘Of course, the standard line is that humans stopped going to the moon only because we no longer wanted to go to the moon, or could not afford to, or something…But I am suggesting that all this is BS…I suspect that human capability reached its peak or plateau around 1965-75—at the time of the Apollo moon landings—and has been declining ever since.’

Can that be true? Charlton is a controversialist gadfly in British academe, but, comparing 1950 to the early twenty-first century, our time traveler from 1890 might well agree with him. And, if you think about it, isn’t it kind of hard even to imagine America pulling off a moon mission now? The countdown, the takeoff, a camera transmitting real-time footage of a young American standing in a dusty crater beyond our planet blasting out from his iPod Lady Gaga and the Black-Eyed Peas or whatever the twenty- first-century version of Sinatra and the Basie band is…It half-lingers in collective consciousness as a memory of faded grandeur, the way a nineteenth-century date farmer in Nasiriyah might be dimly aware that the Great Ziggurat of Ur used to be around here someplace.

How long will it even half-linger? Great civilizations can survive a lot of things, but not impoverishment of spirit. That’s one reason I didn’t join in the media sniggers at Donald Trump’s new Space Force – because I’d like it to be true.

Agreed on that one. But I have an idea of at least one contributing factor in our descent into paralyzed decline:

Phil Plait has mixed feelings about the moon-landing hoax.

Plait — known as “The Bad Astronomer” to his many thousands of readers on Syfy — told he is frustrated that he and others like him still have to debunk the hoax theory from time to time, 50 years after the first moon landing. Then again, Plait became famous because he’s so good at debunking in the first place. 

Back in February 2001, Fox Broadcasting ran a documentary titled “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?” Plait coincidentally had a pile of research ready from a book he was working on, and a friend sent him an advance copy of the show so that he had time to write up a response.

I kind of wish it had never aired,” Plait said about the Fox documentary, “because it opened a huge Pandora’s box. On the other hand, it’s exposing a wound to sunlight. That thing was there anyway, festering. Let it get out to the public, and let it heal, and let it kill the infection. But yeah, it’s troubling. Just to know that if Fox hadn’t aired that, who knows what my career path would have been.”

Like the 9/11-hoax conspiracies, the old “fake moon landing” crap is so stupid it’s embarrassing to sensible people. I mean, come ON: a conspiracy involving not just a handful but tens, even hundreds of thousands of participants…not one of whom ever utters a single syllable exposing it for the rest of their lives? Occam’s Razor alone makes mincemeat of such arrant lunacy. Throw in the idea of the US government being competent enough to pull such a hoax off, then keep it concealed LITERALLY FORFUCKINGEVER, in spite of an Everest of evidence to the contrary in front of our faces every single day, and…well, buy into it if you want. I’ll just be over here quietly laughing at your dumb ass, that’s all.

Anyways, the article toodles along smoothly until this bit, which is what led me to make that “contributing factor” crack earlier:

Plait said there is a danger in talking about the moon-landing conspiracy and other clearly debunked conspiracies like it, such as vaccines causing autism or humans not being responsible for climate change.

Oh, jeez. So here we have an obviously smart fella, a scientist of some type, capable of debunking several other hoaxes and conspiracy theories…and yet he’s fallen for the most pernicious one of the modern era.

I just can’t even. If this guy is any indicator of how intelligence and competence have atrophied, soon enough we won’t even be able to tie our own shoes—much less rediscover the ability to design, build, and successfully launch rockets—and any exploration of space we do will be limited by the effort not to drool on ourselves when we look skyward at night.

Update! Aesop tells the NYT/SJW/PS crowd to suck a fat one.


It upsets them ’cause it’s true.


3 thoughts on “Historical greatness

  1. I was listening to a radio show on KBGA, the student-run radio station at the University of Montana at Missoula, and turned it up when I heard what I thought was a commemoration of the Moon landing 50 years ago, today. Alas, it was nothing of the sort, it was a show about the “moon landing hoax”. The level of scientific ignorance was breathtaking – one of the things that was said was that VHF radio signals could not possibly travel from the Moon to the Earth, because their range was limited to 46 miles, another was that VHF signals travelled very much slower than the speed of light, another was that radio signals could not cross the Van Allen belts, another was that TV technology was in its infancy in the mid-1960s, and so forth and so on. I presume the radio station had a station engineer who could easily put the lie to this nonsense – maybe it’s just streaming digital. The thing which is killing the US scientifically is the woefully inadequate and downright incompetent science and math education in the public schools – people just don’t get the sort of basic science education they need to shoot holes in this tripe. And so they believe it because they don’t know any better.

  2. Sorry about that: I drunkenly dumped that video link in the first thread I came to, little knowing there was a moon thread down here.

    I happen to be a big fan of Bruce Charlton, and I agree that the institutional, cultural, and even biological changes of the last 50 years are irreversible and have robbed us of what was once a mighty power of collective action.

    Apollo had one huge advantage that NASA can never regain: near-total political and popular support. Funding was lavish and nobody seriously questioned the wherefores. This meant that management could afford to Take No Chances. If more research was needed, that research would happen. If a component underperformed in a potentially dangerous way, it could and would be taken out of service and re-engineered. Failure, as the man said, was not an option.

    In the Shuttle era, there was political opposition to space-faring. The Shuttle wasn’t really what anybody wanted. It had no mission sacred to history. It had to justify its existence. And NASA wasn’t quite as on-game as they had been; they couldn’t keep the Shuttle’s promises. Management started to regard proven design failures as acceptable risks in a way the Apollo people would regard with horror. Failure became an option, and NASA lost two Shuttles. In both cases, the potentially-deadly problem was known in advance.

    I reviewed a lot of Apollo-related video yesterday. It is packed with wistful reminders of an institutional greatness that can never be regained. One of my favorite scenes, which I included in my project, shows a work detail on the launch pad as the crawler eases into place. A fellow in a hard hat and a jumpsuit is pulling what look like little chimney brushes out of some tubes. Another fellow in a hard hat, white dress shirt and necktie, is very closely observing the activities of the guy in the jumpsuit, and thoroughly checking the result. To get a good view, the guy in the white shirt and necktie is perched with his ass on a railing thirty feet off the ground. There are no OSHA harnesses in sight.

  3. Why couldn’t we do that now? Many reasons.

    1. As you note, this was an achievement primarily of white, heterosexual, men. Men’s men, if you will. With no quotas or any qualification other than excellence. Now, should we tried that, it would take at least 700,000 people. Why? Well, you’d still need 400,000 people to do the work – but now you’d have to also have ‘jobs’ for the minorities, trannies, faggots, and every other grievance group that could be come up with. Few of them would actually make a meaningful contribution, but many would get in the way. In fact, you might need half a million white men to make up for the drag of the rest. Plus, in addition to the funding for the space program, you’d also need funding for all the gibs that would be allocated ‘because we should invest in our communities’ in addition to the space program.

    2. There’s too much tolerance for mediocrity. This was detailed in an article I read today, and I apologize, but I don’t remember where so I can link it. But the Apollo project was a no-compromise, no-tolerance, perfection is the only option, programs. Even the Shuttle program didn’t have this; both of the Shuttles that blew up did so due to flaws that were known before the launches were made. The chance of catastrophe was simply accepted, and it would not have been during Apollo or Gemini.

    3. Even if we could get past the above two, I strongly doubt that the USA has the manufacturing base needed. The amount of subcontractors needed to build something as relatively mundane as a jetliner is staggering because the aerospace companies do so little in-house these days. Boeing is less a manufacturer of airplanes than an assembler. The more subs, the more chance for errors and tolerance stack. And the amount of overseas contracting (and thus technology transfer) is jaw-dropping.

    4. I haven’t even addressed things like ‘climate change,’ environmental impact studies, and all the other government bullshit involved. Of course there would be something like 50,000 lawsuits of various types.

    No, I agree with the author who suggests that the moment Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon was the top of the bell curve of human achievement.

    I do hear, however, that Nigeria has started a space program. Their problem thus far is that the astronauts keep falling off the kite.

Comments are closed.

CF Comments Policy Statement

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.



Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." -Bill Whittle

Subscribe to CF!

Support options


If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards


RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix