Okay, two separate questions here. The questions are mostly for anyone old enough to remember the moon landing (particularly anyone who was not a child), but also for anyone who had read up on it or heard about it from family is good, too.
Firstly, was there any widespread doubt in your area as to whether people would go to the moon within say 20 years in the few years leading up to 1969. I've heard the space race was a big thing, but did it become a big thing in the public mind when Gargarin went into space or earlier with Sputnik or sometime in between? Or was it always back-burner to most folks? I've read at least one religious figure in 1961 was saying man would never go to the moon - how many people thought that way?
Second question - there were only 66 years between the Wright brothers' famous flight and the moon landing, so did any of you know anyone who was old enough to remember that flight in 1969? How did they feel about it? Was it a "wow, how far we've come" or just another thing in life that gradually changed and so didn't feel like a big deal when it happened? After all, there are a lot more huge changes from 1903 to 1969 that would have had a much more direct effect on people's lives.
I was born in 1953; I don't think there was much doubt it would happen eventually, at least amongst those interested in space and SF, but until Kennedy set it as a national goal for the USA, then was assassinated (with the result that it would be political suicide to cancel it) I doubt many people thought it would happen that fast.
Of course, as a Brit I was plugging for the UK to get there first, but we got involved in Concorde and the Channel Tunnel instead, which probably used about the same proportion of the budget as NASA did for the USA.
Marcus L. Rowland Forgotten Futures, The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
I remember watching the later moon flights (born in 1964) and I've basically become the family historian. I've been asking this kind of question from my family and I have to say it's been really interesting and rewarding. My father was actually responsible for engineering some of the hardware that went on Apollo so I knew at some point he had to have discussed the moon shots with my grandparents. I had a good idea of what I would hear but I knew it would be interesting to ask him, regardless.
My grandfather was born in 1900, my grandmother in 1897 (in the U.S.). As you mentioned, they lived through everything from the Wright brother's flight through the automobile, WWI, widespread use of electric power and the telephone, radio, plastics, WWII, television, the Cold War, the moon landings and the birth of the computer. World War I was concluding as he turned 18 so he had to register for the draft didn't have to serve. Instead, my grandpa built cars at a Ford plant and in the Great Depression he was an electrician. During WWII he arc welded the frames for the Duck amphibious landing vehicles.
It amazes me that none of his professions even existed when he was born. All of those technologies were invented by his generation or made great strides due to his contemporaries. They call them "The Greatest Generation" because they literally remade the world.
What did my grandparents think of the moon program? My dad says they were proud but they also thought it was the next step in the natural progression of science. It was the next challenge and their generation had never turned one down. It was expected. It was less "Wow, how far we've come" and more "Wow, look where we're headed!" I'm sure they would be surprised that no one has gone back.
Well, there were several more landings, but I guess they don't count, really, since they were all part of the Apollo program. Still haven't gotten people to Mars. No moon base, either.
My father said when he was a kid in the 50s, they were taught flying cars would be around in 50 years. And the things they thought the future would hold, it didn't. But then there were things they never thought of that did get invented. Now he did live in a rural area - they didn't have electricity in their homes until the mid-50s. It's interesting how he talks about his family and his uncle's having a cow (co-owned) for milk or how once they could buy chicken in the grocery store they quit eating yard chicken because it was too tough. He's too young to remember most of that.
I'd thought the Greatest Generation was a little younger (WW II fighters), but wikipedia puts it starting in 1901, so close enough. When you mention how many professions, how much was invented in the 1900-1920 span, it really is staggering. I'd always thought 1910-1920 was the biggest jump in technological advancement in the 20th century, but I once read it was 1900-1910. Don't recall how it was determined, though. Either way, it was an amazing time period for change. Sort of a bridge between "then" and "now" - modern utilities and conveniences, etc.
You wonder why there isn't that sort of change, of progress, now. But then, technological progress is sometimes only seen in hindsight. Some things that look like they'll change the world turn out to be fads/dead-ends and others that look like dead-ends turn out to be fundamental changes in society.
Sometimes I think "we didn't do that" and that life isn't substantially different now than it was when I was a child. But that's really not true - it's just that change came gradually, and I didn't really notice it. Definitely not as big a change as 1900-1930, though.
Now there has been much technological advancement since then. We have made huge strides in medical treatment in the past five or six decades, for example. Cost can be a huge issue to those, I admit, but the moon landing wasn't cheap, either. People living older and dying slower. Childhood cancer survival rates - the sorts of progress you never want to have to have personal experience with. Still, compare that to 1845 - 1875 anesthesia and the germ theory of disease and sterilized surgical instruments! I can't imagine the change that made in medical field and how an old doctor might have felt to compare his last days of work to his first. Alas, that's long before living memory.
You learn about the first phone call and telegraph message and first flight and first moon-landing. And the last evokes is the one that still seems like a spectacular achievement to us today, because we don't do that regularly. And it is, it's just there are so many spectacular achievements we use thoughtlessly every day. Also, I think, because the first moon landing was in living memory and we had mass communications so the entire population could be aware of it immediately. What big technological "firsts" will be remembered in post-1970 history?
In my lifetime, the only technological development that really seems hugely significant direct affect in everyday life for a majority of the population is the Internet. And even that is comparing today (mobile devices, high speed access) to no access, not comparing the dial-up days to no access. The amount of information, misinformation, entertainment, communications possibilities at the fingertips of anyone with a smart phone is incredible. Of course, there are so many more, but they are more indirect, out of plain sight.
edit: Encyclopedia commercial - it's over-the-top, of course, but you can see why they aren't exactly in demand anymore.
My father said when he was a kid in the 50s, they were taught flying cars would be around in 50 years.
You know, I'm still waiting for the flying cars myself. But university professor James Kakalios explained why we don't have them in his excellent book, "The Amazing Story of Quantum ...of the Science That Made Our World" . He points out that there has been a revolution in data storage and information technology, but that the battery/energy technology has not followed the same path, primarily due to physical and technical limitations on the storage of power.
I forget the exact analogy, but it went something like this: If battery technology had paralleled computer technology, a battery these days would weigh about 3 grams and last for 3 years. (And I'm sure this quote is incorrect, but that's the idea.)
Dr. Kakalios did point out that in the comic book world, they don't seem to be susceptible to the same technological limitations on battery/power supply size and output. He points out Tony Stark's (Iron Man) arc reactor - a small device that nevertheless puts out enough power to let the Iron Man suit (with human inside) fly through the air. (The footnote at the bottom of the page is hilarious: when the arc reactor is referenced, the footnote says, "Proprietary Technology of Stark Enterprises".)
His book, "The Physics of Superheroes" explains all those things you've been wondering about, like how much force does it take for Superman to fly, why did Spider-Man's webbing fail his girlfriend Gwen Stacy, and can Sue Storm (The Invisible Girl) see while she's invisible? It makes physics a lot more fun and memorable.
Unfortunately, as things stand now, no flying cars.
My father said when he was a kid in the 50s, they were taught flying cars would be around in 50 years.
You know, I'm still waiting for the flying cars myself. But university professor James Kakalios explained why we don't have them in his excellent book, "The Amazing Story of Quantum ...of the Science That Made Our World" . He points out that there has been a revolution in data storage and information technology, but that the battery/energy technology has not followed the same path, primarily due to physical and technical limitations on the storage of power.
I'll check out the link.
I understand why we don't have flying cars (energy requirements), but I'd never compared that precise thing with information technology (save the "if Microsoft made cars" jokes). I've never been that fond of the idea of flying cars myself. I mean, they have some advantages, but you'd still have to have roadways and such. And you get that issue of having to have cameras or something you people can see above and below and the thought of driving in that kind of traffic is not appealing.
I'm rather interested in the driverless cars like Google is experimenting with. I do think accidents are inevitable. The question is really whether there would be fewer with driverless cars than with drivers. But, even if there were fewer, if you wanted the technology to take off you'd have to hope the first one didn't come until the technology was more established. Elsewise people might freak out and ban them even if they were safer because they weren't 100% accident-free. Of course, what's wise depends on what products become available.
I do want the Jetsons three hour work days, though.
Originally posted by Tzigone: I'm rather interested in the driverless cars like Google is experimenting with. I do think accidents are inevitable. The question is really whether there would be fewer with driverless cars than with drivers. But, even if there were fewer, if you wanted the technology to take off you'd have to hope the first one didn't come until the technology was more established. Elsewise people might freak out and ban them even if they were saf[b]er because they weren't 100% accident-free. Of course, what's wise depends on what products become available. [/b]
I don't know anything about the Google cars, but they had driverless cars (taxis) in "The Fifth Element". Bruce Willis, of course, hijacked (carjacked) it, so not very safe, IMO.
VirginiaR. "On the long road, take small steps." -- Jor-el, "The Foundling" --- "clearly there is a lack of understanding between those two... he speaks Lunkheadanian and she Stubbornanian" -- chelo.
Originally posted by VirginiaR: I don't know anything about the Google cars, but they had driverless cars (taxis) in "The Fifth Element". Bruce Willis, of course, hijacked (carjacked) it, so not very safe, IMO.
Cars with drivers get hijacked everyday. Although some states have passed laws that a driverless car much have a licensed driver in the driver's seat. Defeats a lot of the purpose. I can certainly think of problems with a driverless car, but it getting stolen isn't one of them. Just as easy to steal a regular car.
Most people seem to think rather than full automation, it'll just lead to more parking-assist-type things that are assistance for drivers rather than working independently. I don't know enough about it to say.
I saw the news just minutes before I came to this thread again Saturday. Waited until now to post because I just didn't have anything to say about it.
Been reading posts of people remembering that day/night (depending on where they were). Most of the people posting were children then, but there are posts from adults, too. It's interesting: some people had parents who told them "this is important" and made them watch, some were kids who were really excited, some were adults who planned their day around it, some had to work, and some actually didn't remember the specific event at all. I wasn't surprised by the kids who went outside to see if the moon looked any different with people on it. I was surprised by the people who remembered being told it was fake, even then (thought that was a later thing).
Among my earliest distinct memories was the landing. My parents had made me watch that day, for which I am now grateful. But at the time, I had thought it boring. I didn't understand what the big deal was. I was too young to be able to distinguish fact from fiction, and I thought that James Kirk and company traveled a whole lot farther than the moon, and they made it look a lot more exciting.
Joy, Lynn, who is home from work today to take care of her sick son
I can kind of agree with the boring-ness. At least for me, since I know how it turned out. Tried to watch a video, but it was a lot of people sitting in the NASA control room not doing visually interesting things (then switched to the astronauts). Huge accomplishment, though.
I do kind of wonder how many adults who understood what was happening were still rather bored by it.
