SciTech

When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions [Review]

port1080.

Posted to SciTech on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:26:42 AM EST (promoted by 1fastdog). RSS.

In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the US space program, NASA and the Discovery Channel recently released a new 6 part documentary chronicling the history of American space flight, from the early Mercury missions right up to the present. The documentary revisits many iconic images, but also contains much footage from the NASA archives that is being shown for the first time.

The documentary was released in HD, and while much of the earliest footage was shot on relatively low resolution film the techs have done an excellent job cleaning things up and up-converting it all to hi-res quality. The footage varies widely, from hand-held shots by the astronauts themselves, to fixed-camera shots from Mission Control, to official footage of the various launches (and failed launches). Some clips from the episode can be found here, on the show's official website.

More interesting, perhaps, are the interviews of the different astronauts and NASA officials which are interspersed throughout. Many of the original surviving Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts were interviewed, as well as Shuttle astronauts from some of the more memorable missions (such as the Hubble Space Telescope repair mission). The interviews themselves were often quite illuminating, and the astronauts themselves often exhibited quite a bit of frustration with and even anger towards the NASA bureaucracy (the most revealing quote, perhaps, came from John Young, commander of the first Shuttle flight and veteran of both the Gemini and Apollo programs, when he noted (in regards to the strength of the Shuttle's heat shielding tiles) "They told me you could hit [it] with a baseball bat and it wouldn't hurt it...they weren't exactly telling me the truth." Earlier in the series, John Glenn made a similar comment when criticizing Mission Control for not telling him that they believed his heat shields had malfunctioned and that he would burn up on re-entry after the mission in which he became the first American to enter orbit around the Earth.

These exchanges reveal some of the contradictions of the program - while it makes some attempts to show the warts and problems of the space program, it still seems fundamentally forgiving of NASA. Almost all the interviews are with either current or retired NASA employees or astronauts, with the lone exception being a few appearances by media correspondents who covered the space beat. Because of this, many of the accidents and failures get glossed over with someone saying something like "mistakes will happen - space is dangerous!" The Apollo 1 disaster barely received any consideration, other than a brief summary of what happened and some images of the burned out capsule. Apollo 13 was covered in detail, but the focus was far less on how it was allowed to happen (or why there were so few safety procedures worked out in advance) and far more on the heroic aspect of the story.

Later accidents received somewhat more coverage. The Challenger explosion did receive quite a bit of detailed coverage and the NASA folks were more than willing to self-criticize, but the coverage of the Hubble mistakes and the Columbia explosion both had a very odd tone. The fact that mistakes happened was acknowledged, and exactly what happened was explained, but no effort was made to assign blame or to accept blame. It was difficult to escape the feeling that the culture at NASA still has difficulty coming to terms with its culpability for those events. This was especially disconcerting in light of the coverage of the Columbia disaster, as the program interviewed two surviving family members of the crew, as well as showed footage from home videos taken by one of the crew members right before the explosion - to this viewer it seemed like a great betrayal to expose those emotions to view and then not make an honest assessment of what went wrong.

Overall the show provides a coherent, heroic narrative of the American space program and it is certainly entertaining to watch and full of amazing footage of the space program. At the same time, the series left this viewer with a strong sense of despair over what might have been. The progress from the first Mercury mission through the end of the Apollo program was truly stunning, and the Shuttle was an undeniable technical achievement, but there is no denying the feeling one gets in the later episodes that NASA has perhaps lost its way. Although a return to the moon is scheduled for 2020 or so, with long-term plans for a manned mission to Mars sometime after that, the next generation set of space exploration vehicles meant to get us there - Project Constellation - is still largely on the drawing board. Will humanity ever establish permanent habitations beyond Earth's orbit? Or, perhaps, the more compelling question might be whether NASA as it's currently run has either the will or the way to get us there?

Tags: written by Port1080, edited by 1fastdog, NASA, space, science, exploration, review, DIscovery Channel (all tags)

This story: 10 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Re: When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions [Review]

port1080.

Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:32:12 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

NASA has just announced that the Shuttle will be retired by 2010, after about 10 more missions. The Ares rockets, which are supposed to replace the Shuttle, won't be ready until at least 2014. In the interim NASA will rely on Russian and European systems to put human payloads into orbit. The delay may be much longer if Obama is elected - he has proposed to strip NASA of $5 billion in funding to help pay for education reform, which could delay current programs by five years or more.

2

^ 1

Re: When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions [Review]

thefadd.

Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:01:57 PM EST

none

Wow, that sucks. I suppose I am one of the few who is all for the militarization of space. We pay billions fighter jets, why not make some low orbit capable, then just keep pushing their capabilities outward.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

3

^ 2

militarization of space

skeptic.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:46:05 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

The militarization of space is prohibited by the UN treaty on the peaceful uses of outer space, a treaty which was both signed and ratified by the US.  Of course, if the US should ever decide to abrogate this treaty, it would hardly be unprecedented in US history.  It is sometimes said that treaties are made to be broken.

The danger of space militarization is that it presents the possibility of yet another arms race, and the US is far from being the only nation on Earth that has the capability of putting weapons into space.  Ideally, the world should be moving in the direction of less military spending, rather than more; we do, after all, have very serious environmental problems which are going to be very expensive to deal with (if, indeed, we ever do seriously decide to deal with them, rather than just fighting among ourselves as the world crumbles around us).

On the other hand, if the US were able to use the militarization of space cleverly enough, in order to gain a sudden overwhelming advantage which would be used to conquer the world in order to unite the human race, for the first time ever, in order to make a well organized and coordinated effort to solve our fundamental environmental, economic, and political problems, and make the world better for everyone, that would be a good thing.  But the chances of success for such a scheme appear to be very remote.

4

^ 3

Re: militarization of space

thefadd.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:01:40 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

We already have a satellite race which is a defacto arms race.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

5

^ 4

Re: militarization of space

skeptic.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:48:30 PM EST

none

In a sense there is already an arms race in space, although the satellites in question are not armed (as far as I know - maybe the US military has a surprise in store for us).  There are weather satellites, communication satellites, global positioning satellites which all have civilian applications, although they can also provide militarily useful information.  In any event, there is a big difference between satellites which are solely intended to observe the Earth and relay or send back information, and satellites which are designed to project force (whether in the form of projectiles, missiles, lasers, particle beams, etc.).  We have not yet seen the REAL arms race in space.

6

^ 5

Re: militarization of space

thefadd.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:05:08 PM EST

none

Satellites are an amazingly important aspect of American military predominance. China understands this and is actively planning its ability to counter this advantage using missiles and its own satellite systems. The Pentagon has declared the extreme importance of maintaining orbital access and control. Short of hand to hand combat, I just don't see how that isn't militarization.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

9

^ 6

militarization of trees and things

skeptic.

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 09:30:55 AM EST

5.00 (astute, funny)

Yes, imagine that, you don't see how the current use of satellites isn't militarization.  And what was I saying about this in my previous comment?  That yes, there was already militarization in space, since the satellites do have military uses as well as civilian uses, although the militarization could become much more extreme if the satellites were armed, rather than being used only for information.
Since I was agreeing with you, naturally you have to protest my (imaginary) disagreement.  Otherwise, what would we have to argue about?

8

^ 3

Re: militarization of space

Lou.

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 08:10:50 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

Here's a fun little idea created by some clever homosaps.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

10

^ 8

Re: militarization of space

skeptic.

Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 09:43:04 AM EST

none

Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about when I say that although there is already some militarization of space (since satellites are vital to military intelligence) there could be tremendously more, if we really want to exploit the military possibilities of space.

7

^ 2

You're not alone.

MayorBob.

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:21:08 PM EST

none

In fact, your government hears you and stands ready to kick things up a notch in outer space. The proscription on militarizing space has generally been placement of weapon systems in orbit. On that count (as far as anyone knows) everyone has behaved well. Almost from the beginning of Soviet and American space programs, we have had active spy satellite programs. There was never an attempt to curtail these programs because a). any such attempt would fail, b). they aren't weapon systems, and c). they are sources of such valuable information.

But, if General Ashy's statements ring true, it's only a matter of time before we do start sticking weapon systems in space and nations begin squabbling over claims to portions of the cosmos and we might as well start shredding all those UN agreements.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

This story: 10 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment