"Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."

At the time, I didn't really care about the Apollo 11 moon landing.

In my defense, it was 40 years ago, and I was seven. As a result, the real significance of the event was lost on me, but I do remember sitting on the floor in the living room and watching the coverage of the landing - it must have been on CBC, we didn't get any American channels. I feel a bit sad now that my recollection of the events isn't clearer. After all, from the perspective of 2009, the moon landing may well be the most significant historical moment of the 20th Century. In the immortal words of Neil Armstrong: "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

Or was it?

It's difficult to say if the moon landing or the first manned orbital mission should hold precedence here, but I'm going to stick with the moon landing. After all, "space" is a relative concept, and it's difficult to say exactly where it begins, whereas landing on the moon has a nice, definitive feel. That being the case, by the standards of the science fiction community landing on the moon should have been just the first step, rather than a giant leap.

It's not hard to run an alternate reality scenario here. Let's say JFK doesn't get assassinated, and in his next couple of terms manages to promote the exploration of the Moon as a crucial element of the fight against Communism. The Apollo missions following 11 aren't just imitations of the first landing, but instead begin to enlarge the American presence (given the photo I used to start this posting, I hesitate to say "footprint"). Four missions later and there's a permanent base - small, but it's there. By now there would be a constantly changing population of several hundred on the Moon, and there could easily be a manned mission in orbit around Mars, preparing to launch the Ares Lander.

Now obviously, that's not what happened, and it's somewhat tragic that the initial success of the lunar missions has gone to waste. Would a different president in the early 70's have changed anything? It's impossible to say, but it does raise the question of what a different president will mean now.

I suspect that Obama will ignore the exploration of space in favour of addressing a myriad of more pressing domestic problems - charity beginning at home, as it were. Admittedly, there's talk that the American space program may once again look at the Moon as a precursor to a landing on Mars. There's talk of a permanent base on the Moon, but there's also talk that a Moon base is irrelevant - if it's possible to build a base on the Moon, why not go directly to Mars, or possibly Deimos or Phobos? Sadly, I suspect that all this talk is just that: talk.

There are two sides to the whole discussion of space exploration. On one hand, it doesn't really matter. I won't argue the various benefits and developments that have resulted from the space program, because the man on the street probably just doesn't care. I suspect that it wouldn't take a lot of public opinion to tip the balance so that the United States government just folded up NASA and shuffled the money into health care, something with an observable benefit.

On the other hand, wouldn't a revived space program be a better national focus for the United States than the battle against terrorism? (And yes, it pretty much has to be the United States, I don't see anyone else being in a position to undertake the project.) I'm not going to suggest that they can ignore the terrorism issue, but the last eight years have made substantial changes in the mindset of the USA, and not for the better. A renewed space program might give the country a sense of pride and accomplishment that's been sadly absent for quite some time.

In the final analysis, or, as per my oft-used reference from the three-armed aliens in The Mote In God's Eye, on the gripping hand, all we can do is wait and see...

- Sid

"On the dark side of the moon"

"Dark Side of the Moon is THE signature album of the twentieth century."

Chris Sumner, a Friday night several months ago.
(Disavowed when sober)

Having just been awakened, as usual, by the somehow concerned meowing of the infamous Nigel, the fleeting memories of a dream begin to fade in the daylight, as dreams tend to do. Sadly, due to workload, many of my recent dreams have dealt with paper stocks and printing issues (no, really), and very often I have no memory of my dreams at all, but in this case, the fragments of my dream were of a science fiction drama on the moon - on the dark side of the moon, to be specific.

I have to give full credit to my subconscious mind for the large portion of my dream involving my relationship with one of the other members of the moon base - a somewhat hawk-faced, kinky haired blonde woman who might have been an Israeli. Thanks, subconscious, now if you can have this woman cross my path in the real world... That aside, the dream was surprisingly retro, with a military contingent on the base in case of difficulty with the opposing Russian mission, concealed data disks and people assembling vacuum-capable weaponry that probably wouldn't work like they did in the dream. There were even references to the Apollo missions. As one of the soldiers was putting together some kind of tripod-mounted light artillery, he mutters something about "getting his golf club ready", in acknowledgement of Alan Shepard's 1971 golf shot during Apollo 14.

However, in the clear light of day, it occurred to me that at no point did I notice the lower gravity. How sad that imagination failed me at that point! Sigh...I blame innumerable TV programs that have come up with workarounds to keeps the budget down, but it's unfortunate that my sleeping mind was unable to make the leap (no pun intended) to quarter-gravity. Perhaps another time...

-Sid

Three thousand tubes of what?

I'm currently reading Arthur C. Clarke's Prelude to Space, written in 1947 and set in 1978, which describes a first mission to the Moon. Clarke points out in his introduction to the 1977 reprinting of the novel that, "On July 20, 1969, all the countless science-fiction stories of the first landing on the Moon become frozen in time, like flies in amber. We can look back on them now with a new perspective...for we know how it was really done and can judge the accuracy of the prediction."

Clarke's description of the mission varies considerably from the final result, but not so much that the novel has the anachronistic feel of Jules Verne or H.G. Wells. (Actually, I find that Wells holds up much better than Verne over time, but that's another topic.) However, the part that really jumped out at me, sixty years in Clarke's future, was the following conversation after a tour of the ship's cockpit:

"It's a bit overwhelming, but not so very much worse than a transcontinental jet's cockpit."

"It is if you know what goes on behind all those panels," said Matthews grimly. "Arnold Clinton - that's the electronics king - once told me that there are three thousand tubes in the computing and control circuits alone. And there must be a good many hundreds on the communications side."

Three thousand vacuum tubes? I almost laughed out loud - relying on a system like that to go to the Moon would be like having someone say that a battleship would only be able to sail if none of the light bulbs on board burned out. Now, admittedly, when Clarke was writing the book, state-of-the-art computing was represented by ENIAC, which had close to 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighed 27 tons. The next time that you have a problem with your computer, remember the gentleman in the image at the left of this paragraph, who is troubleshooting a problem in ENIAC by looking for a dead tube - see, Vista's not that bad after all, is it.

Coincidentally, the needs of the Apollo program for a more reliable system for use in the Apollo Guidance Computer led to concentrated research into the development of the integrated circuitry that replaced the vacuum tube and which is now used in virtually every piece of electronics in existence. Sadly, the AGC crashed five times - only in the computer sense, fortunately - during the landing approach to the Moon by the Eagle module.

- Sid

"A normal, routine flight".

It is difficult to think of a science fiction author who has had more of an impact on the real world than Sir Arthur C. Clarke. His early work with radar during WWII, his proposal of the geosynchronous communications satellite, his television appearances as a commentator, the movie adaptations of his work, and of course his countless stories, essays, novels and books, all combine to make him a cultural icon. 

 A large portion of Clarke's work occupies a sort of near-future niche: the Space Odyssey books, A Fall of Moondust, The Fountains of Paradise, The Hammer Of God, the Rama novels, and, to a lesser extent, Imperial Earth. Clarke has never attempted to create a unified history of the future, as have authors like Larry Niven, Robert A. Heinlein, or a host of other. However, the future as Clarke portrays it in those books demonstrates a logical, consistent, considered evaluation of how life in space might actually be lived.  

2001 is a perfect example of this: Heywood Floyd's trip to the Moon is, as it says in the narrative, "a normal, routine flight". That being said, let's look at Mr. Floyd's trip. 

He boards a booster-assisted spaceplane that takes him to Space Station One, where he transfers to a zero-g shuttle that takes him to the Moon. The boosters for the spaceplane are independent craft that fly back to Florida to be refueled and used again. 

Interestingly enough, in the course of the trip Floyd logs on with his Newspad and downloads a selection of current papers to read, clicking on thumbnail-sized images to select the pages he wants. Because Clarke is English, it is of course unlikely that Heywood would be looking at porn, but other than that it's pretty close to what most people do now with their laptops when they travel - not a bad guess for 1968. But I digress...

The craft used in 2001 are designed to occupy specific niches, and as such are completely different in their designs. The spaceplane is essentially the current Space Shuttle, but with better seating, stewardesses, and apparently less of a re-entry problem. The suggestion is that it's like an orbital 747, designed to operate for the most part within the atmosphere, but capable of limited vacuum operation. 

The zero-g shuttle is completely different. Other than the fact that it's laterally symmetrical (presumably for convenience of accelerating along its centre of gravity) it has all the aerodynamic qualities of a brick, because it will never feel the touch of air - it's purely a vacuum craft. And, like the spaceplane, it's a multi-use craft designed to perform the Earth-Moon circuit over and over again. 

The space station itself is a much more developed entity than the current ISS, although, like the ISS, it's a work in progress, as demonstrated by the bare skeleton that's visible. The station is rotating in order to use centrifugal force to create the illusion of gravity, cited in the novel as equal to the Moon's (1/6 of Earth's). As a sidebar, Clarke describes the lounge area of the station as having "a restaurant, post office...barber shop, drug store, movie theater, and a souvenir shop", making it sound pretty much like an airport concourse, as opposed to the movie version:

Any further comment would be superfluous. 

 In my previous posting, I cited some of the advantages of space stations, and I find it odd that the American space program has never made a serious effort to establish and maintain a permanent facility in orbit. I'm aware of the various difficulties involved in getting things up there, but on that basis shouldn't they be trying to make sure that everything that goes into near-Earth space stays there? 

 My younger readers - if there are any (readers, that is) - will not remember the Chicken Little experience of waiting to see where Skylab was going to impact when it lost orbital stability. Shouldn't it still be up there as part of the current Space Station, like building a home around the original log cabin? 

If I were in a position of authority at NASA, I'd be tempted to ignore the issues involved in manned missions to the Moon or Mars for some time, and just concentrate on developing an infrastructure based around three space stations: Earth, Moon, and Mars. I'd then establish a repeatable, reusable and reliable system of travel between the stations - in other words, a normal, routine flight.

- Sid