Yuri’s Night Out: Celebrating 55 Years of Humans in Space

[Ed Hudgins]

Yuri’s Night Out: Celebrating 55 Years of Humans in Space
By Edward Hudgins

Space enthusiasts mark April 12^th as “Yuri’s Night Out,” a celebration of the first human in space: Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth in 1961.

But Gagarin’s trip was courtesy of the Soviet government, which was hostile to the individual liberty that is the mark of civilization. Gagarin’s flight was still an achievement that marked a monumental turning point in human history and reflected values actually held in common by many in East and West, values that are, sadly, under siege in our world today.

The dream of space travel

While political and military concerns drove the Cold War race into space and to the Moon, many of the men and women involved were motivated by the goals of exploration and knowledge. America no doubt reached the Moon before the Soviet Union in part because our society was more open and free. Both sides had technical failures. But the dictatorial Soviet system meant few in the space program would speak truth to leadership.

Indeed, Gagarin himself was scheduled as the backup astronaut on a mission to dock two capsules in space, ordered by Soviet boss Brezhnev to mark the 50^th anniversary of the communist takeover of Russia. Gagarin and his colleagues knew the capsules were death traps, but those who questioned orders found themselves demoted or worse. Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov died when his failing craft crashed back to earth.

Ultimately, the Soviet’s socialist economy and closed political system collapsed under its own contradictions. At the same time, the socialistic left’s belief in technological modernity collapsed as well.

The modernist aspiration of the old left

Karl Marx celebrated the Industrial Revolution’s production of immense wealth. (He was profoundly wrong in his belief that capitalists in market economies reaped the lion’s share of that wealth by exploiting workers.) This belief in the power of technology was a hallmark of the old left.

Soviet leaders sought to modernize... (Continue reading here.)

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Ed Hudgins said:

Yuri’s Night Out: Celebrating 55 Years of Humans in Space
By Edward Hudgins

Space enthusiasts mark April 12^th as “Yuri’s Night Out,” a celebration of the first human in space: Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth in 1961.

But Gagarin’s trip was courtesy of the Soviet government, which was hostile to the individual liberty that is the mark of civilization. Gagarin’s flight was still an achievement that marked a monumental turning point in human history and reflected values actually held in common by many in East and West, values that are, sadly, under siege in our world today.

The dream of space travel

While political and military concerns drove the Cold War race into space and to the Moon, many of the men and women involved were motivated by the goals of exploration and knowledge. America no doubt reached the Moon before the Soviet Union in part because our society was more open and free. Both sides had technical failures. But the dictatorial Soviet system meant few in the space program would speak truth to leadership.

Indeed, Gagarin himself was scheduled as the backup astronaut on a mission to dock two capsules in space, ordered by Soviet boss Brezhnev to mark the 50^th anniversary of the communist takeover of Russia. Gagarin and his colleagues knew the capsules were death traps, but those who questioned orders found themselves demoted or worse. Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov died when his failing craft crashed back to earth.

Ultimately, the Soviet’s socialist economy and closed political system collapsed under its own contradictions. At the same time, the socialistic left’s belief in technological modernity collapsed as well.

The modernist aspiration of the old left

Karl Marx celebrated the Industrial Revolution’s production of immense wealth. (He was profoundly wrong in his belief that capitalists in market economies reaped the lion’s share of that wealth by exploiting workers.) This belief in the power of technology was a hallmark of the old left.

Soviet leaders sought to modernize... (Continue reading here.)

 

Raymond Massey saying the "all or nothing"  lines  was  quite impressive.  I have always enjoyed "The Shape of Things to Come"  and I enjoyed H.G. Wells full length book equally.  

[Ed Hudgins]

"Things To Come" is indeed inspiring even though Wells present a pseudo-fascist vision of how to create a utopian future. Kind of a guilty pleasure. But it does show the spirit of the old left.

[BaalChatzaf]

41 minutes ago, Ed Hudgins said:

"Things To Come" is indeed inspiring even though Wells present a pseudo-fascist vision of how to create a utopian future. Kind of a guilty pleasure. But it does show the spirit of the old left.

I agree, but buried in the novel were some interesting and possibly good ideas.  I think H.G. Wells was zeroing in on a proper theory of money.

Money is both a universal trade good and a  catylist for  investment and production.  A growing economy (capitalist or not)  requires  credit money to be created. I call it future money.  Such future money brings into existence (with a good probability) new goods and services which serve to redeem the "future money" and make it current money.  As the pool of goods and services grow over time so can the stock of money with a maintenance of prices.  Gold Money by itself is insufficient even with increasing velocity of translactions.  Gold worked for a while because the supply of available gold was increasing at about the same rate as the production of goods and services.  

[syrakusos]

I have to point to Ayn Rand's essay, "The Monument Builders."  Space travel was technically feasible in the steam age of Jules Verne. Willey Ley tells the story of the Germans around von Braun having called all their committee supporters to a roundtable because they needed a special pump to handle the booster stage. They thought that one would have to be specially created. A representative from some firm or other suggested that they contact the firm that makes fire engines, because those pumps are pretty good.

Quote

Once the Soyuz began to orbit the Earth, the failures began. Antennas didn't open properly. Power was compromised. Navigation proved difficult. The next day's launch had to be canceled. And worse, Komarov's chances for a safe return to Earth were dwindling fast. -- http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/05/02/134597833/cosmonaut-crashed-into-earth-crying-in-rage

Collectivism prevents space travel, and always had. Two world wars - the first, especially - drained the resources and the will of the world.  Remove World War One and we would have had a Lunar colony by 1950. 

I am enthusiastic about space and always have been. Always.  Before the loss of Challenger, I had applied for the "Journalist in Space" competition. I was facing Walter Cronkite and John Denver, so I was at the back of the line. Still, I learned to fly, and to write about aviation.  And I have a soft spot in my heart for those old Bolsheviks, of which Ayn Rand was (romantically) one: big dreams, big ideas, women in engineering...  But for all of that, the USSR threw human lives at every problem.  We throw money.  Which way of life do you prefer?

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

14 hours ago, syrakusos said:

I have to point to Ayn Rand's essay, "The Monument Builders."  Space travel was technically feasible in the steam age of Jules Verne. Willey Ley tells the story of the Germans around von Braun having called all their committee supporters to a roundtable because they needed a special pump to handle the booster stage. They thought that one would have to be specially created. A representative from some firm or other suggested that they contact the firm that makes fire engines, because those pumps are pretty good.

Collectivism prevents space travel, and always had. Two world wars - the first, especially - drained the resources and the will of the world.  Remove World War One and we would have had a Lunar colony by 1950. 

I am enthusiastic about space and always have been. Always.  Before the loss of Challenger, I had applied for the "Journalist in Space" competition. I was facing Walter Cronkite and John Denver, so I was at the back of the line. Still, I learned to fly, and to write about aviation.  And I have a soft spot in my heart for those old Bolsheviks, of which Ayn Rand was (romantically) one: big dreams, big ideas, women in engineering...  But for all of that, the USSR threw human lives at every problem.  We throw money.  Which way of life do you prefer?

 

 

In Jules Verne's time refrigeration was not equal to the task  of  tanking up liquid state gases to burn.  Jules Verne space ship was a missile fired from a cannon.  Any passengers aboard would have been reduced to gelatinous goo. Conceivable a shell fired from a big enough cannon might have achieved escape velocity.  But of what use??  There was no telemetry in Verne's time. Radio broadcasts were not possible until  1887 at the earliest when Hertz produced the worlds first radio broadcast in his laboratory while testing out Maxwell's equations.  And tuning transmissions were not possible until about 1910 when the thermionic valve (aka vacuum tube)  was invented. 

[Brant Gaede]

There is no financial reward to having a lunar colony nor a geo-political one for having a moon base. The only good reason for going back would have to be scientific and it's doubtful it would be actual humans going back, just robotic equipment. As a stunt the lunar landings might be repeated--by the Chinese for the prestige.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

MM: "I am enthusiastic about space and always have been. Always.  Before the loss of Challenger, I had applied for the "Journalist in Space" competition. I was facing Walter Cronkite and John Denver, so I was at the back of the line. Still, I learned to fly, and to write about aviation.  And I have a soft spot in my heart for those old Bolsheviks, of which Ayn Rand was (romantically) one: big dreams, big ideas, women in engineering...  But for all of that, the USSR threw human lives at every problem.  We throw money.  Which way of life do you prefer?"

Yep, Rand was contaminated somewhat by collectivism. I call it top-downism, some top-downism isn't collectivism such as from the elite that founded this country. Even that constitutionalism was contaminated by the likes of Hamilton. Your choices, by the way, exclude any third individualistic non "we" way and imply lives didn't go with money and money didn't go with lives. The overt simplicity generates false alternatives. It's a matter of the ratios of the emphases of each.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

6 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

Lousy bug-infested too complicated software

Please delete this

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

There is no financial reward to having a lunar colony nor a geo-political one for having a moon base. The only good reason for going back would have to be scientific and it's doubtful it would be actual humans going back, just robotic equipment. As a stunt the lunar landings might be repeated--by the Chinese for the prestige.

--Brant

Mining Helium 3 on the Moon  may provide the means of getting controlled nuclear fusion.  The HE 3 fusion reaction is the most feasible.  Also the far side of the Moon is where to build telescopes  (in all frequency spectra)  beyond the dreams of our most fervent astronomers.  If we are to become a space-faring civilization the Moon is the natural jumping off place. 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Mining Helium 3 on the Moon  may provide the means of getting controlled nuclear fusion.  The HE 3 fusion reaction is the most feasible.  Also the far side of the Moon is where to build telescopes  (in all frequency spectra)  beyond the dreams of our most fervent astronomers.  If we are to become a space-faring civilization the Moon is the natural jumping off place. 

Interesting.

When the Europeans conquered the world they conquered people whom they then exploited and traded with. That justified their voyages of discovery then colonization. When the Spaniards did it for gold it was the same model but it was faux wealth and they imported inflation to Europe with the gold. Growing cotton and tobacco in the American colonies was another matter. Those products or products from those products enriched both sides of the Atlantic. What you mostly make out of gold are bars and coins. To go to Mars humans will need faux humans--robots?--to live there who can send us materials and/or products we can make things out of. Real people shouldn't stick around that kind of environment for long for all kinds of reasons. What would be a reason compatible with psychological and physiological realities?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

33 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Interesting.

When the Europeans conquered the world they conquered people whom they then exploited and traded with. That justified their voyages of discovery then colonization. When the Spaniards did it for gold it was the same model but it was faux wealth and they imported inflation to Europe with the gold. Growing cotton and tobacco in the American colonies was another matter. Those products or products from those products enriched both sides of the Atlantic. What you mostly make out of gold are bars and coins. To go to Mars humans will need faux humans--robots?--to live there who can send us materials and/or products we can make things out of. Real people shouldn't stick around that kind of environment for long for all kinds of reasons. What would be a reason compatible with psychological and physiological realities?

--Brant

Going into space is not the same thing as going over the Ocean to conquer land, people, make converts  etc. etc.  There is no one on the Moon except people who go there.  The Moon requires technological support from the ground.  

Going overseas mean the explorers could live off the land  after they arrives.  It is a very difference process.  Going to the Moon is similar to opening up scientific research stations in Antarctic.   The motives for going are primarily scientific, not political. 

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Going into space is not the same thing as going over the Ocean to conquer land, people, make converts  etc. etc.  There is no one on the Moon except people who go there.  The Moon requires technological support from the ground.  

Going overseas mean the explorers could live off the land  after they arrives.  It is a very difference process.  Going to the Moon is similar to opening up scientific research stations in Antarctic.   The motives for going are primarily scientific, not political. 

State science?

If the government would let private wealth accumulate through the generations, the wealth owner could pay for that for that reason. The government would rather take the money via taxes than have to compete with such private power. I couldn't say it isn't for the best out of the unknown future. I can't say the private model also isn't for the best. I do think humans will continue to do better and better until a giant rock clobbers the planet.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

State science?

If the government would let private wealth accumulate through the generations, the wealth owner could pay for that for that reason. The government would rather take the money via taxes than have to compete with such private power. I couldn't say it isn't for the best out of the unknown future. I can't say the extant dominant model also isn't for the best. I do think humans will continue to do better and better until a giant rock clobbers the planet.

--Brant

Who said anything about the State?

[Brant Gaede]

35 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Who said anything about the State?

I did. (I also fixed a mistake in my post.)

--Brant