AP
This Feb. 20, 1962 photo made available by NASA shows astronaut John Glenn during his space flight in the Friendship 7 Mercury spacecraft, weightless and traveling at 17,500 mph. The image was made by an automatic sequence motion picture camera. (AP Photo/NASA)
Fifty years ago today John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth and return safely to the surface.
"In 4 hours and 56 minutes, John Glenn circled the globe three times, reaching speeds of more than 17,000 miles per hour. The successful mission concluded with a splashdown and recovery in the Atlantic Ocean, 800 miles southeast of Bermuda."
Safely on Earth, Lieutenant Glenn said, "Boy, that was a real fireball of a ride." Said CNN: "Four million people turned out to honor him at the largest ticker-tape parade New York City had ever thrown. President John F. Kennedy valued Glenn so highly as a symbol of U.S. prowess during the space race with the Soviets that he ordered NASA not to let him return to space."
So what's next? Does America still have The Right Stuff? The comments are go for lift-off, Friendship 7.
Leave a Comment:
When you consider the technology that put him there .....mind boggling bearing in mind it was only about 20 years between the initial V-2 and that day. I cn remember my mother let me stay home from school so I could watch it.
I would remind my teabagging friends that it was gubbmint money that put that capsule in space that was provided by TAXPAYERS.
I would remind the anti-Tea Party that it was Republican Eisenhower who created NASA and began development of the rockets that carried the first astronauts into space.
The Tea Party wants to claim Eisenhower as one of its own?
A bit of history, Poo: Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, labeled Eisenhower a Communist sympathizer and called the president's brother, Milton, an outright Commie...
One of the founders of the JBS was Fred Koch, the father of Charles and David Koch, two individuals who've been making the news lately.
Eisenhower's programs were a little slow since the first person to orbit the earth was cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin... It was Kennedy's commitment to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade that accelerated the space program.
But Ike does deserve full credit for the Interstate Highway system... Damned socialist that he was...
Don't forget, he also warned us about the "Military Industrial Complex"...
I think the point was that communism at that point was a superior economic system as far as developing the science and technology for space exploration. The US caught up by being more communistic with lots of government spending. I am a free market capitalist but the truth is we never would have gone into space through free market capitalism.
I was in school when Sen. Glenn took off on his magic carpet ride. Everyone was brought into the auditorium where three TV sets were turned on so we could watch his lift-off, and then we stayed until he was safely in orbit. This was before the days of instant communication to and from everywhere on earth - or space, for that matter - so there were periods when he was out of radio contact. The student body of Kenney Elimentary School sat waiting breathlessly until we could hear his voice again during the first orbit.
We went back to class but were re-assembled in the auditorium when he was returning to earth - more hushed silence from the 250 kids - and when Glenn and his capsule was brought aboard an aircraft carrier by helicopter, the entire school including our teachers, the principal, office staff, lunch lady Doris and the janitors erupted in massive applause.
It seemed like a time when the United States could do anything it set its mind to doing. We still could but while our spirit is still willing, Republicans prefer making things difficult for most and impossible for everybody else.
In case anyone forgets, the government paid the bill for all of our space efforts and in turn the country got transistors, the technology that led to personal computers, massive medical advances and tens of thousands of outstanding jobs for engineers, technicians, administrators, construction workers and even janitors.
PS ... I forgot: We also got Tang, "the orange juice astronauts drink!"
Teflon too! and Velcro!
Your Glenn story is very similar to my Alan Shepard story. We were at recess and brought in to the auditorium watch. Only took 15 minutes for that one. I recall it like it happened this morning.
Could not tell you what I had for lunch on Saturday, tho...
Tang already existed. It was not developed for the space program.
Same with velcro the transistor and teflon. They all already existed. The space program did provide a demand for these products. Texas instruments might not have existed without the space program and they were instrumental in developing the integrated circuit making calculators possible.
Although I am not a capitalist at heart it can be amazingly effective. As I heard on Up with Chris Hayes this weekend, it can be ruthlessly effective. President Obama set the agenda by offering support for free enterprise to enter the next economic frontier.
To tackle the challenge of space requires immense amounts of money, courage and technical know-how.
Here are the companies who think they have the right stuff:
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/
http://www.boeing.com/bds/
http://www.spacex.com/
http://www.stratolaunch.com/
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home
It's really amazing that the Arch-Socialist President Obama would set up a competition to let the market decide who takes over the government monopoly of Space delivery.
I remember that and going to the parade.
But the Parade would not happen today under Bloomie for not only was The mission of Project Mercury not completed there were yet Project Gemini and Project Appolo to go so the Pentagon might have disapproved.
How times change.
Don't blame Bloomie for no Post Iraq parade. The Pentagon has asked him to hold off and he is only supporting their wishes. If you have an objection, the target should be the joint chiefs. For whatever reason they seem to believe that it wouldn't be fair to those still deployed. I don't know the right answer, but I don't think it is fair to blame the Mayor.
While I am a HUGE supporter of Space science development and research, and am one of those who understand all of the collateral discoveries that have and continue to come along with this research, I am also a practical Democrat who understands that at a time of greatly limited funds, if one must choose between funding space development and supporting our poor and middle class, the latter MUST get our immediate attention. This should, of course, be temporary, and with an improved economy it is critical that it resume, but for the near term we must manage our priorities.
That being said, the fact that the government must choose between these priorities in no way precludes PRIVATE investment being directed towards our space goals. The willingness for entrepreneurs like Paul Allen and Richard Branson to target these technologies as potentially viable businesses is certainly instructive and indicative of a way forward.
You are correct on some things in this post, but there is a little bit of failed logic when it comes to the big picture. Why should we have to decide between space exploration/science and supporting the poor and middle classes? NASA's most ambitious project to date, the james webb telescope, has a total cost less than a single month of occupying troops in Afghanistan. People have this false assumption that the budget for NASA must be this stiflingly huge number because of the amazing things it does, but it really isn't. The defense budget topples the budget for NASA so much, it is almost not even worth mentioning. The real thing we should be asking ourselves is not Science or poor and middle class, but the exploration of space and new technologies or the preservation of a military base in a country that has been our allies for some years (Germany, Italy, Japan, England, Etc.)
If budget decisions were up to me I don't doubt that I could find plenty of money for NASA, but they are not. Sadly they are up to 536 people all with different agendas and motivations, many who mostly care about themselves and their rich friends. We can only do what we can do, and when choosing priorities I have to put our present economic crisis first. Personally I am much more concerned about the jobless and our economy than our deficit, but, sadly, that is not universal.
If you look at our budget you see our priorities. Clearly fighting wars and killing people is a primary objective.
When you look at tax structure you see feeding the top 1% just as clearly as a national priority.
We used to worry about our old but now we are told we can't afford that. The rich and corporations and war machine needs more, more, more. I don't know why I called out the rich and the corporations and the war machine since they are really the same exact thing aren't they?
What rich people would make more money if we spend more on Nasa? Evidently not a large enough amount of the political donor base.
I vividly remember Lt. COLONEL Glenn's flight (the one and only detail you missed---can't win 'em all), and it galls me to see how many opportunities this country has blown over the last five decades. And Newt Gingrich's 'Lunar-Colony-by-2020' is just more of the same, in that he wanted to draw public attention from his abysmal leadership record in the House. We have much to do if we really want a viable manned-space infrastructure in place. And I DON'T want to see Beijing handed a de facto monopoly in the matter, for any number of good reasons.
We watched that historic event all afternoon on a black and white tv that the nuns placed in the front of our classroom. And since our education was of paramount importance to them at all times (and, by association, to us), that was a huge step for them to take. It wasn't until years later that I realized they had meant to provide invaluable snapshot memories that we would treasure forever. It worked! :)
I don't understand why we are abandoning the space shuttles. They can be upgraded until research demonstrates the shuttles need a major overhaul. All my life I have watched the takeoffs of space craft and it always amazed me. We should continue our space program even if it is on a reduced funding basis. This is a big mistake to abandon the shuttles.
Endeavour, the last shuttle built (to replace Challenger) first flew in 1992. That's 20 years ago, and is the newest member of the fleet. How comfortable would you feel flying that into space? I realize we fly in 25 yr old airplanes all the time, but you can understand how the stresses and risks for an aircraft and a shuttle are hardly comparable...
If the structure is sound then everything else can be replaced and upgraded just like airplanes. If the structure is not sound then cannibalize the old shuttle for parts for the new one. You still have cost savings even if you do the latter. Plus you do not have to reinvent the craft.
I don't know enough about aircraft design or metal stress to have an educated opinion on that, but I WILL say that given their experience over the history of the shuttle, the design folks seem to believe that a vehicle attached to the side of a booster rocket is not a very good idea anymore. Most if not all of the newer ideas for a space vehicle put the craft above the booster rocket rather than next to it. Someone at NASA (don't remember who) said that the current shuttle design would never be "safe" in terms of potential damage from debris coming off the booster.
I so remember the excitement of the early space program. The astronauts were national heroes. When President Kennedy made his statement. We chose to send a man to the moon and back again. Not because these things are easy, but because they are hard." My chest still swell with pride knowing that nothing we attempt to do can be accomplished.
Your last sentence should be a double negative and should read, "Nothing we attempt to do cannot be accomplished." And I agree!!