The Apollo Moon Landing – 50 Years On ****************************************************************************************** * The Apollo Moon Landing - 50 Years On ****************************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************************** * Is it time to go back? Or should we aim for Mars? ****************************************************************************************** “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and to do other things, not because they are e they are hard.” - U.S. President John F. Kennedy in his famous Moon speech at Rice Stadium in Houston, Tex 12, 1962 The moon has fascinated us for most of recorded history: a guiding light on dark seas, a s illuminating the heavens, a symbol of the unattainable, a god. For most of human existence cratered surface remained impossibly beyond reach. All that changed 50 years ago, on July some 500 million people watched a live televised broadcast (the largest ever TV audience a commander of the Apollo 11 mission Neil Armstrong emerged from the Lunar Module called the his NASA spacesuit - became the first man in history to step onto the Moon’s dusty surface The words he spoke would become one of the most memorable quotes of the 20th century: “That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind”. THE RACE TO THE MOON Reaching the Moon had been a task of unprecedented proportions: financing and preparation research called for enormous dedication, ingenuity and progress. Early milestones by the S the first manmade object in orbit (Sputnik 1 in 1957 which came as a shock to the US), the orbit Major Yuri Gagarin in 1961 and the first female cosmonaut in space, Valentina Teresh The early milestones were not only a feat of scientific success and human bravery but also for the Soviets. Back in 1957, when the first attempt by the US to launch a satellite and rocket failed and fell back to earth from the height of just a few metres and exploded, th Nikita Khrushchev boasted “America slept under a Soviet moon”. Some argue that although the Americans trailed, they were not as far behind as first appea Milan Halousek is a publicist and well-known populariser of space program history, formerl Space Office (CSU): “The Soviets were fierce at the start and the Americans were slower; but they were also mo While the cabin in Project Mercury was ready for its first human test pilot, they still op chimpanzee (named Ham) instead in January 1961 – in case anything went wrong. Alan Shepard already at that time but safety won out. Technological advances and success in more comple Gemini and of course Apollo itself would ultimately give the United States the edge and it the Soviet Union would end up floundering… and fall behind.” Back in 1962, Kennedy had stressed in his speech at Rice University how much of a priority Moon – and getting there first – would be. “We mean to be a part of it, we mean to lead it,” he said. In the same address, the American president outlined the enormous costs and made clear tha than a complete commitment would be unworthy of the task of putting astronauts on the moon Publicist Milan Halousek again: “In his speech to Congress in May 1961, Kennedy said the US should land a man on the moon It was an important and galvanising moment: to send astronauts there and to return them sa Earth. There is no question that solving all the problems successfully - within such a sho was a huge task: much of the necessary technology did not even exist yet and would have to Then, Kennedy was assassinated. Maybe that, however, was even more reason to push for succ SACRIFICE, DEDICATION AND ENORMOUS RISK The American space program, says Halousek, eventually gained the advantage with Program Ap followed Gemini and Mercury). The first crewed flight within the program was Apollo 7 in O Apollo 8, the first crewed spacecraft to go beyond low Earth orbit and reach the Moon, orb return home, was in December the same year. The space program had also pushed ahead despite earlier setback and tragedy: the deaths of Grissom, Edward White, and Roger B. Chaffee, the crew of Apollo 1. They died when a flashf their capsule in 1967 during a pre-flight test. The tragedy underlined the enormous danger – a grim reminder that despite the best planning anything could still go wrong at any mome Richard M. Nixon secretly had two versions of a speech prepared for the Apollo 11 mission Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin ended up stranded on the Moon’s surface left to die. There when it comes to manned space flight, Milan Halousek says: risk can be managed or reduced percent. “The Saturn V rocket plus the capsule had some five million parts so even if things are mi reduced to the absolute maximum, the chances of something going wrong with fatal results i high. And of course there were mistakes, there were failures, Apollo 1 and later Apollo 13 an explosion in the service module). “Luckily, at the most important moment, in July of 1969, the Americans avoided catastrophe COULD have gone wrong: had the motor failed on the lift-off from the Moon’s surface when t engine, Armstrong and Aldrin would have died.” STEEL NERVES On July 20th, 1969, a Sunday, at 12:52:00 UTC Armstrong and Aldrin began their descent to the Eagle; at it landed at 20:17:40 UTC. The descent was not without problems: during land above the Moon’s surface, the LM guidance computer sounded the alarm. The situation was se Halousek again: “Several things happened at once: the Eagle had separated from the command module where Mi remained in orbit around the Moon. Armstrong and Aldrin - aboard the Eagle - began their d was a final decision on Go-No Go to decide whether they could land. And that’s when the gu reported a mistake categorised as ‘1206’ which was fairly serious. It meant the computer’s overloaded – and that was a problem.” Houston reacted quickly and, in effect, experts said later the landing should have been ab “Computers then weren’t what they are today: basically they ran pre-programmed procedures be changed but were basically hardwired or baked in. The computer wasn’t much more than a in a way.” There were only seconds to take a decision and those seconds meant that the lunar module o original landing site. Headed for a deep crater, Armstrong took over manually, with a poor landscape outside through one of two small triangular windows. Fuel was running out quickl landed with less than a minute of fuel left. It touched down some six kilometres away from planned site but the crew was unharmed. “Armstrong had such a soft touch that although the module’s legs were supposed to compress That meant that the outside ladder was higher off the ground than had been expected. When Armstrong had a moment when it looked like he was reconsidering continuing, but he was act height of the jump to the ground.” AN INSPIRATION FOR ALL HUMANKIND The successful mission to the Moon of course “changed everything”. To this day, many remem they were when the Eagle landed, either watching live on TV or when they heard the news, b World but also in countries behind the Iron Curtain such as Czechoslovakia. Both Armstrong and Aldrin spent a little over two hours on the Moon’s surface, taking samp conducting scientific tests before preparing for the return: to re-join the command module two-and-a-half day journey back to Earth. Reaching the Moon was seen by many not as victory for the US (although it effectively ende but for all humankind, paving the way for innovation and technology we are still benefitin Certainly, Soviet leaders were dismayed their own space program failed to reach the Moon f The US had succeeded… but everyone benefitted. Generations since have been inspired by the original footage of Armstrong and Aldrin and w fellow crew member Michael Collins accomplished. It seems incredible that the US reached the Moon in 1969 and would return five more times 1970s but not once since. WHAT NEXT? Petr Brož is a Charles University graduate and scientist at the Czech Academy of Sciences’ Geophysics. His focus is volcanism across the Solar System with a special emphasis on Mars was nevertheless born long after the last Apollo mission ended, but he cites the moon land pivotal moment and huge inspiration all the same. “From my perspective, landing on the Moon is the single greatest achievement of humankind. the most complex project we ever set our sights to and it was great and it was very inspir it or watch documentaries about that time and I am sad I couldn’t witness it. I would have seen it.” Like many fellow scientists, he says even today we are still feeling the benefits of advan of the space program. “There is no doubt we learned a lot: we made huge technological progress, we learned how t of enormous complexity, we developed computers and made advances we now use every single d “From a scientific point of view, we benefitted enormously from having gotten people to th actually having taken samples on the ground and having been there, because it allowed us t theories first-hand. They were able to do scientific work in the short time they were ther the area, and that is incredibly worthy. Samples from the place make all the difference. E just theory. “That is something we can see now when it comes to exploration on Mars or exploration of o in the Solar System. It is much harder when we see things only from orbit and we simply ha necessary samples. While we can send robots there and rovers to investigate and get a lot having people on the ground makes a difference: we are basically missing ways to verify ou Recent years have seen renewed pledges by the US to return astronauts to the Moon or to be for manned missions to Mars, seen by some as a logical steppingstone for colonisation – on lost on no one, however, are the enormous costs that would be required to reach the Red Pl exceeding the cost of the original moon landings) as well the huge technological advances SHOULD WE RETURN TO THE MOON? By appearances, the scientific community is divided: should humans return to the Moon firs directly for Mars? Here’s what Petr Brož says: “Some think that we should go the Moon first for a number of reasons. For one, we could te technologies there and learn much more about surviving in such a harsh environment, it is to reach and – in the event of problems, certainly easier to escape from if the need arise we should aim for Mars straight away, not waste money and go directly to Mars. The more di something not done before, would force us to think differently to achieve such a goal. Per in the camp that thinks we should aim for Mars directly but I totally understand the think should return to the Moon.” In his view, going to Mars would be far more inspiring than going back to the Moon, capabl the public’s attention and gaining the public’s support, a dream that would fuel the imagi as going to the Moon did in the 1960s. He places a lot of stock in entrepreneur and vision Space X and others in the private sector as being able to play an important role. One drawback, a project of such proportions cannot work without political will and strong engagement. For example, the current American President Donald Trump has at times expressed support fo both the Moon and Mars… but tweets last month cast doubt that, at least from his perspecti Moon still made sense. He tweeted on June 7, 2019 that: “For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars ( is a part), Defense and Science!” Which will it be? NASA is said to be currently preparing a mission to the Moon by 2024 und Program but some experts see that as optimistic. The CBC and other news sites have reporte biggest obstacle may simply be funding, noting that the entire Apollo Program cost 25 bill which – adjusted for inflation – would be more than 280 billion today. Scientist Petr Brož agrees the biggest problem will be for anyone to agree on covering the Nevertheless, he thinks we should try to achieve reaching Mars, even though it may seem im present. “Saying that something is impossible because we didn’t try it, it is not the best way forw we need to try and then we can say if something is impossible or not. That was exactly wha from his engineers and scientists: to try something which seemed impossible at that time.” LOBSTERS ON TITAN Another question is whether we should even be aiming for either: after all, there are stil important missions in various stages of development that also require funding and which to we view life, the universe, and everything in it. Such as unmanned space flights – and abo landers - that can reveal much about our solar system. Ondřej Čadek is a professor at Charles University’s Department of Geophysics at the Facult and Physics in Prague who remembers when the Eagle landed (he was nine) and he too cites i human achievement. But he is unsure going back to the Moon today makes sense. Not when the important discoveries out there to be made, equally deserving of funding and rigorous scie attention. “Sending humans to space is expensive and because it is expensive you have to take money f projects. There are great projects now being planned to explore the outer parts of the Sol icy moons of Titan or Europa, which could host very primitive forms of life. “And I am just afraid that all the money will be pooled to pay for example to return peopl The thing is, if we return there, I don’t think it will answer new questions. “By contrast, if we are able to confirm life elsewhere in the solar system, which would te can exist ‘everywhere’. Of course, my field focuses on finding suitable areas where primit exist – salty oceans under huge layers of ice. I would like to know if there is life elsew be microbes in seas under the ice?” Professor Čadek reveals that a colleague from NASA who was an esteemed guest at Charles Un that one reason for the exploration on icy moons is to learn if there might be “tasty moon the ice. Imagine importing those! Jokes aside, there is simply a fear that there is just not enough funding to go around. Pr be set for either returning to the Moon, going to Mars, and other important research. But see other highly important scientific research scrapped as a result. 50 YEARS ON Fifty years ago, NASA had ambitious plans for the future of manned travel, a space station Moon, plans which went unrealised. The last manned crew to reach the Moon was Apollo 17 in December 1972 and the last man on Commander Eugene “Gene” Cernan (who had Czechoslovak roots). NASA went on to develop its s program and we have not been back to the moon since. Was it a mistake not to continue? Some are optimistic we will successfully return by 2024 or perhaps by 2028 as was original Milan Halousek points out that even with today’s advances it will not be easy. In his view have the knowledge there is a still a lot that will have be tested and re-learned. “Manned space flight today still has important scientific results, that’s without question opinion we NEED to return to the Moon. Today we are capable of sending people 400 kilometr years ago, we sent astronauts 380,000 kilometres from Earth.” To this day only 12 astronauts – all from the US – have ever walked on the Moon. Will that anyone follow in their footsteps soon?