In Case They Didn't Come Back From the Moon
motherboard.tv
motherboard.tv
It is actually cheaper to keep sending supplies to Mars to keep you alive, than to send enough to lift off and return.
I'd probably do it myself now; certainly would if were 60 years old.
I would only do it if I could bring 5 male friends and 5 female friends. This, too, would bore me probably before we landed, but at least there would be a variety of human presence.
They did their best to keep from dying of course, but I somehow doubt they'd have grounded the program for years of congressional whinging had it occurred.
In short they seem like a whole different kind of person. The people who are going to win the race to mars (and eventually reap the near limitless mineral wealth the solar system has to offer) are going to be the people who are most prepared to accept death on the way.
I question the notion that we'll ever tap the "limitless mineral wealth" in an efficient manner (we still have to take it back home for it to be useful, that costs energy, energy is dear while rocks are cheap), but supposing somebody did, is there any incentive to be first to the party? What are they going to do, grab the infinite wealth and leave nothing for the rest of us?
Anybody with a few million can launch a satellite these days, regardless of what their nation's space program was like in 1960. Let China (or India, or Kenya, or whomever) get to it a few months early and then private industry will commoditize access. (And the value of rocks will plummet as the supply shock hits. Whee.)
In the meanwhile, we can spend the billions saved on things that won't be there tomorrow. "Children in Africa" are just one example.
Its the most important race ever run. Its not against soviets or chinese, its against ourselves and our limited resources.
There's something else that won't be here tomorrow as well. All of the resources we have today. We might have centuries to go do the space thing later. We might not.
Right now I think maybe we could use some hope and few heroes that don't play with rubber balls for a living.
I do believe this is the first time I've ever disagreed with Patio. Much respect, brother.
It's not like I dislike the idea of going to Mars (I have a well thumbed copy of Zubrin's "The Case for Mars") - but at this moment in time, do I think it is a sensible thing to do? Sadly, absolutely not.
For most analogous engineering projects (e.g. going to Mars) the answer is "because it costs too much".
These men would have had very little to no hope of a rescue, but they would have had plenty of air left to choose when they wanted to die. I can think of no more beautiful sight at death than your entire world and species.
Assuming that's true I think drifting to sleep underneath the Earth in the same way people on earth drift to sleep underneath the moon would be pretty darn awesome.
I have no idea if that sort of thing was available on the moon missions, but it would probably the most convenient option if you've got nitrogen available.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8068091823725414405...
He comes to the conclusion nitrogen would be the most humane (euphoria, then painless death). Apparantly it won't get used because those states that still use the death penalty find this way of leaving the temporary for the infinite a bit too easy on the convicted... (forward to 45:30 in the video).
I remember an interview with Aldrin where he was asked how he would have spent his last moments in case he got stranded on the moon, and he answered he'd be trying to get the engine working :)
“It was said that when they were in use, astronaut candidates would be asked to get in one. After fifteen minutes or so, the candidate was asked how long they thought they had been in. If the candidate was not hysterical and guessed anything under an hour, they passed!”