What did the apollo-program contribute to science?

[Frankium]

Long story short: I'm having a discussion with a friend of mine who has seen one too many youtube ""documentaries"" about the moon landing.
I am trying to argue that the apollo program probably produced a whole lot more than a few minutes of television history, either in the form of hard science or experience, that probably helped lay the foundation of knowledge and science used today.

The reason I'm posting this here, and not in the comspiracy-section, is that I don't know where to start digging to find any kind of science produced during the apollo program og based upon it. Got any suggestions?

[slang]

Welcome to BAUT, Frankium.

Surely you've thought already of the masses of moon rock returned to Earth laboratories, and the loads of information it provided. I think they seismic experiments also told us quite a bit.

There is quite a list of useful websites in this thread on the ApolloHoax discussion board. The Reality of Apollo subforum might be helpful as well. Others may have specific websites, like a NASA document server (for which I don't have the URL handy).

[Swift]

Hi Frankium, welcome to BAUT.

For one thing, there are all the lunar samples that were brought back, and the research that was done, and is continuing to be done, on them.
Here is NASA's lunar sample curation page, with tons of info.

Between 1969 and 1972 six Apollo missions brought back 382 kilograms (842 pounds) of lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand and dust from the lunar surface. The six space flights returned 2200 separate samples from six different exploration sites on the Moon. In addition, three automated Soviet spacecraft returned important samples totaling 300 grams (approximately 3/4 pound) from three other lunar sites. The lunar sample building at Johnson Space Center is the chief repository for the Apollo samples. The lunar sample laboratory is where pristine lunar samples are prepared for shipment to scientists and educators. Nearly 400 samples are distributed each year for research and teaching projects.

There has been a lot of stuff in the last few months about water in lunar samples, including reexaminations of Apollo samples (one example).

And here is a 2009 article about some other recent research using Apollo samples.

[NEOWatcher]

Here's a list of some science experiments to get you started.

APOLLO MISSIONS SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS
And that's the on-board experiments. There was a lot that we learned about Earth's and Moon's history.

In addition to that, the technology and scientific aspects for the hardware and techniques had many accomplishments.

[Swift]

A wikipedia article on third party evidence for the Apollo moon landings. In other words, evidence that doesn't come from NASA.

[Frankium]

Thanks a lot, both for the welcome and the answers. I'll look into the links.
I actually hadn't thought about the samples brought back from the moon

[astromark]

Unrelated...I think not. There is a swath of ongoing technical advancements that are directly linked to the Apollo program.

Electronics and advancements were directly related to wanting smaller lighter reliable components...

'Only when men want do they build.' Look at the advancements the war machine has generated. From your microwave oven to the hand held PDF.

A direct result of the big steep forwards the want to place man on the moon and return is all around us. The digital watch, Teflon coatings,

Fibre optics. The flat screen TV. All of these applications can be directly linked to the great space race of the early to mid 1960's...

If we could just rebuild that passion...who knows where it might have ended. We would not have stopped at mars would we... ?

Necessity is the mother of invention. Wanting to be first on the moon was a huge step forward.

Convincing our politicians its a need worthy of pursuance... like herding cats....

[PetersCreek]

I was just going to mention Apollo Spinoffs.

[John Jaksich]

Apollo was just one of many successful explorations of other planets in our solar system--the earth has been put in such a well-put perspective through our landings on that planet. I don't want to sound overly maudlin but without a good understanding of the moon-earth interactions---we wouldn't have seen that gorgeous Earth-rise photo.

[JonClarke]

The solar wind samples from Apollo 11 were also a major contribution. If you include Skylab in the Apollo program Skylab discovered coronal mass ejections and a provided a major imputus to Earth observation and as well as data relevant to space biology and materials science

[Peter B]

Long story short: I'm having a discussion with a friend of mine who has seen one too many youtube ""documentaries"" about the moon landing.
I am trying to argue that the apollo program probably produced a whole lot more than a few minutes of television history, either in the form of hard science or experience, that probably helped lay the foundation of knowledge and science used today.

The reason I'm posting this here, and not in the comspiracy-section, is that I don't know where to start digging to find any kind of science produced during the apollo program og based upon it. Got any suggestions?

G'day Frankium, and welcome to the BAUT Forum.

For me, the main contribution of Apollo in terms of science was helping scientists come up with a new theory for the origin of the Moon. It's a story worth reading, and the best example I've seen is Dana Mackenzie's "The Big Splat".

Essentially, up to the middle of the 20th century, there were three theories about the origin of the Moon: 1. The Moon and Earth formed in the same place at the same time, 2. The Moon formed somewhere else and was captured by the Earth, and 3. The Moon was spun off the Earth. However, all three theories had serious flaws, but scientists couldn't come up with any ways around the problem.

The scientific objective of Apollo was to determine the origin of the Moon, although I understand that scientists were fairly skeptical that Apollo would be able to provide the answer.

Anyway, the rocks proved to be very useful, and helped scientists come up with a new (and current) theory on the Moon's origin, known as the Big Whack or Big Splat. So that alone came from Apollo.

The theory also went hand-in-hand with a new understanding of how dynamic the Solar System was, and, more importantly, how dynamic it still is. It's because of this that we realise that it was possible for a large rock to crash into the Earth to make dinosaurs extinct, and even for something like this to happen today. In other words, it's possible to draw a fairly straight line from Apollo to the search for Near-Earth Objects - the things which could crash into the Earth at some point in the future.

[Andrew D]

Computers!

[danscope]

Hi, I think you have to appreciate the many marvels of the Saturn V as wll as the engineering/navigation architecture developed by the program,
Attitude thrusters , communications, video links , environmental science and monitoring , succesfull heat shielding / re-entry , fuel cell developement,
and lightweight vehicles to traverse a foreign satelite , quality space suits , and training facilities . Al this in a fairly short time span.
We solved much with the Apollo program . These guys made us proud . I'm still impressed .
Best regards,
Dan

[Luckmeister]

Computers!

Nope, computers were developed and in various uses before Apollo.

[Andrew D]

Fair enough; advances in applications of computing.

[plant]

Well, i hate to play devil's advocate ... but apart from bringing a few rocks back (which a robotic lander could have done).. what use was it?
Manned missions are as pointless today as they were in the 60's and 70's. It was always about ego, politics, nationalism, 'ownership' and possibly even future mercantile interests - never about science.
You don't spend trillions of taxpayer's dollars on a space mission so that you can accidentally invent velcro or freeze-dried icecream.. come on PEOPLE!!!!
So they sent some air-force guys to the moon to play golf and plant a flag.... pointless.
They didn't fake the moon landings- but they certainly did fake the benefits of going.

[NEOWatcher]

A devil's advocate is usually playing that role to get some extra information. Since that extra information has already been presented, you're playing a different role.
What kind of comments do you have on what's been presented along with the wealth of information in the links?

[Gillianren]

Oh, goody. The old "robotic landers" argument. How much Moon rock has ever been brought back by robotic landers compared to the amount brought back by humans? What's different about the stuff brought back by humans versus the stuff brought back by robots?

[astromark]

@ Plant; " Well, I hate to play devil's advocate." then why do it ?

I will put aside your argument as we have real information and interesting samples returned from the moon.

More than any of that was a 'achievement for humanity...'

The advancements made were before there time..

Never before or since have such a coherent and singular program been undertaken...

That we did it and, without loosing our way was significant.

The apathy that you speak of is what killed it and, has since destroyed any hope of budgets for a return...

[Herkfixer]

Apollo was just one of many successful explorations of other planets in our solar system--the earth has been put in such a well-put perspective through our landings on that planet. I don't want to sound overly maudlin but without a good understanding of the moon-earth interactions---we wouldn't have seen that gorgeous Earth-rise photo.

Ha... had to say it... it wasn't an Earth rise photo... It was an Earth set photo... its upside down...

[ngc3314]

Ha... had to say it... it wasn't an Earth rise photo... It was an Earth set photo... its upside down...

All Apollo landing missions, as well as Apollo 8, were on retrograde orbits around the Moon and were there between new moon and waxing gibbous as seen from Earth. Anytime you see an Apollo orbital picture with the lunar limb and Earth in the same frame, if the Moon is in sunlight, it's Earthrise. Earthset would have it dropping behind an invisible wall.

(Somebody had to say it...)

[slang]

Frankium, are you still around? Was there something useful for you in the answers?

Well, i hate to play devil's advocate ... but apart from bringing a few rocks back (which a robotic lander could have done).. what use was it?

So you didn't research any of the provided links, even ignore the answers. That's pretty sad.

Manned missions are as pointless today as they were in the 60's and 70's. It was always about ego, politics, nationalism, 'ownership' and possibly even future mercantile interests - never about science.
You don't spend trillions of taxpayer's dollars on a space mission so that you can accidentally invent velcro or freeze-dried icecream.. come on PEOPLE!!!!

You seem to be pretty sure of yourself about this. Why not start a thread in the CT forum about it? It might be a good idea to make sure you're familiar with the rules there though.

So they sent some air-force guys to the moon to play golf and plant a flag.... pointless.
They didn't fake the moon landings- but they certainly did fake the benefits of going.

Jack Schmitt was (is) a civilian, a geologist. You know, a scientist. Most of the time spent on the lunar surface was spent on setting up instruments and collecting samples. Every Apollo astronaut received extensive geological training, so they wouldn't pick up 20 exactly the same type of rocks, so they knew what to look for.

[plant]

"The moon landings were an important impetus to technology but you have to ask the question, what is the case for sending people back into space?" "I think that the practical case gets weaker and weaker with every advance in robotics and miniaturisation. It's hard to see any particular reason or purpose in going back to the moon or indeed sending people into space at all." Martin Rees - Britain's Astronomer Royal 2010

"Robotic missions are much cheaper and may provide more scientific information, but they don't catch the public imagination in the same way, and they don't spread the human race into space, which I'm arguing should be our long-term strategy. If the human race is to continue for another million years, we will have to boldly go where no one has gone before." - Stephen Hawking, Cambridge University 2009.

Ok- so the OP asks "what did the program contribute to science"? This is a broad question and i'll grant you the unintended 'spinoffs' would certainly fit into this category. But how about if you ask a more relevant question "what did the program contribute to the field of astonomy, cosmology etc?" or even better, "could the money spent on the missions have been better spent on robotic missions?". Possibly, at the time, the answer to this latter question may have been no given the limitations of the technology at the time. Now, however, (ironically perhaps due to unforseen spinoffs) the answer to the last question is probably yes.

I'm not arguing that there was no point in going to the moon - just that is wasn't worth it from the scientific point of view.
I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be cool to go back, or to put women on mars- just that there'd be little point beyond the spectacle! Stephen Hawking wants us to go in the spirit of exploration- not for the science.

I would agrue that it's a little trite to say the accomplishment was "for all mankind". How would Americans feel if the Soviets landed on the moon back in 1969.... don't you think they would have gone ahead anyway to plant their own flag?

[NEOWatcher]

...I'm not arguing that there was no point in going to the moon - just that is wasn't worth it from the scientific point of view...

I think that's a very big issue we tend to struggle with.
What exactly is knowledge worth?
It's hard to say, because there is usually no direct link between the knowledge and the advantages.

Just think of all the money spent in quantum physics. Billions on supercolliders, and other experimental packages. Those are a little easier to see, but a lot of times it's just to confirm what we think is going on. Although; when you look back to what we have learned and applied over the decades, you can find technology advances based on quantum concepts.

In the same way, we have Earth sciences which were helped by the moon exploration. We know more about the makeup of the Earth, how it formed, how it evolved, how the Earth functions. All these have factors in techtonic activities and predictions. They also relate to archeaology to help in understanding the layers of the various artifacts.

So; was it worth it? Who knows. At the time it was the best way to achieve the science. In today's world, maybe not. But at the time, would it be worth it for the scientists to sit around for 40 years to see if a better way would arise?

[Swift]

As Frankium's question seems to have been answered (and he has apparently departed) and this thread has become a debate about manned versus robotic exploration, and related issues, I've moved this thread to Space Exploration

[JonClarke]

"The moon landings were an important impetus to technology but you have to ask the question, what is the case for sending people back into space?" "I think that the practical case gets weaker and weaker with every advance in robotics and miniaturisation. It's hard to see any particular reason or purpose in going back to the moon or indeed sending people into space at all." Martin Rees - Britain's Astronomer Royal 2010

Rees is an astronomer so not perhaps the best person to judge the scientific value of human space flight.

"Robotic missions are much cheaper and may provide more scientific information, but they don't catch the public imagination in the same way, and they don't spread the human race into space, which I'm arguing should be our long-term strategy. If the human race is to continue for another million years, we will have to boldly go where no one has gone before." - Stephen Hawking, Cambridge University 2009.

Another astronomer, this time with a diametrically opposite opinion. Maybe they cancel each other out?

Ok- so the OP asks "what did the program contribute to science"? This is a broad question and i'll grant you the unintended 'spinoffs' would certainly fit into this category. But how about if you ask a more relevant question "what did the program contribute to the field of astonomy, cosmology etc?" or even better, "could the money spent on the missions have been better spent on robotic missions?". Possibly, at the time, the answer to this latter question may have been no given the limitations of the technology at the time. Now, however, (ironically perhaps due to unforseen spinoffs) the answer to the last question is probably yes.

Let me give you an extended quote from Ross Taylor of the world's leading lunar scientists:

...human exploration coupled with sample return unquestioningly results in the most profound scientific understanding of a planet... they are essential. ...the "New View" of the Moon that has resulted from the entire range of exploratory tools and cross-disciplinary studies has been eye-opening. It points compellingly to a model for how future planetary exploration should be conducted. Because we now know how to do it right: what kinds of missions and (in hindsight) in what order.

Lesson #3: There is no substitute for the ultimate mobile sensor: a human... if the Apollo experience taught us anything it is that the human ability to recognize interesting features quickly and then independently act to follow up on that information can lead to important discoveries... One of the most famous examples occurred during the Apollo 15 mission, when a suspiciously white rock was spotted sitting atop a small pedestal of soil... The "Genesis Rock"... turned out to be nearly pure sample of the kind of anorthosite that... might compose the lunar highlands... The near-instantaneous recognition and collection of the sample by the astronauts is nothing like the laborious process of finding it with a rover and then programming the rover to travel and collect the sample. Humans are completely autonomous and process large amounts of complex information very quickly.

Another example, which illustrates a very different advantage of human explorers, is the story of the "seatbelt basalt".... Scott spotted an unusually vesicular rock along the way, judging that they would not be given permission to make an unscheduled stop for the sole purpose of picking up a sample, Scott instead stopped to "fix a seatbelt"... Outside of science fiction, robotic rovers do not fib or otherwise evade instructions in order to take advantage of a scientific find. Humans are independent and creative.

A third famous example is the collection of the orange glass by astronaut Schmitt on Apollo 17.... A geologist's instinctive attraction to an unexpected and possibly significant color, and his ability to act instantly upon a serendipitous discovery, led to the collection of the orange glass soil.

The point of these anecdotes is not to advocate that all planetary exploration should be done by human missions - that is not realistic. Rather, it is to emphasize the kinds of discoveries that are possible when humans are present: ones that require quick decisions, astute judgement arising out of intense training. And the ability and willingness to take quick advantage of serendipity (even if it means sometimes using subterfuge to do so!). Our knowledge of the Moon would be much poorer if we had not sent astronauts. There is no question that similar discoveries will be made when (hopefully) we send astronauts to Mars.

"Earth-Moon system, planetary science, and lessons learned" S. R. Taylor, C. M. Pieters, and G. J. MacPherson In "New views of the Moon", edited by B. L. Jolliff, Wieczorek, M. A., Shearer, C. K., Neal, C. R., Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 60, 657-704, Mineralogical Society of America, 2006.

I'm not arguing that there was no point in going to the moon - just that is wasn't worth it from the scientific point of view.
I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be cool to go back, or to put women on mars- just that there'd be little point beyond the spectacle! Stephen Hawking wants us to go in the spirit of exploration- not for the science.

Let me give you some quotes from people who have deveoted much of their lives to the robotic exploration of Mars.

Steve Squyres

I love sending robots to Mars. That’s what I do, OK? I'm a robot guy. But even I believe that the best exploration — the most successful, the most inspiring exploration — is ultimately going to be done by humans. And I’ve always viewed our mission as robotic precursors — being advance scouting missions. If you’re going to go through the enormous cost and dangers of sending humans to Mars, you better be sending them to the right places, and doing it for the right reasons. So I view our mission as very much laying the groundwork for that by helping to find the right places to go on Mars, by helping to frame the scientific questions that astronauts are going to Mars to try to answer.

I think 'humans vs. robots' isn’t even the right dialogue to have. The right dialogue to have is, 'How do you use the two together in a complementary fashion to achieve the best science?'

Interview in ""Going to Mars", B. Murihead, J & G Reeves-Stevens. Pocket Books, New York, 2004.

Mike Malin and Ken Edgett

We are constantly aggravated by the fact that all the questions we have about Mars could now be answered by Ken and me if we could just walk around on the planet for a few days.

National Geographic, Feburary 2001.

I would agrue that it's a little trite to say the accomplishment was "for all mankind". How would Americans feel if the Soviets landed on the moon back in 1969.... don't you think they would have gone ahead anyway to plant their own flag?

People all over the world felt and continue to feel it was humanity's achievement, not solely that of the US.

If the USSR had been first, it would have been similar, if Sputnik and Vostok are a guide.

[djellison]

I would agrue that it's a little trite to say the accomplishment was "for all mankind". How would Americans feel if the Soviets landed on the moon back in 1969.... don't you think they would have gone ahead anyway to plant their own flag?

How would Soviets feel if the Americans landed on the moon back in 1968... don't you think they would have gone ahead anyway to plant their own flag?

Oh.

They didn't.

[mike alexander]

Trillions of dollars for space missions? Many here would drool...

Don't undersell the nonscientific aspects. I was watching and listening to all the missions and I'll tell you, my heart was pounding during 11's descent and landing.

[plant]

The Soviets WANTED to, they tried to but they couldn't!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...oon-khrushchev

[Jerry]

The microchip is a direct result of NASA funded research in the early 60s to reduce the size and mass of electronic components. Less direct; but equally important, was the development of the opamp.