Space History, contemporary resources vs modern day information

I had the foresight to save a lot of material I collected in the 1960s
and 1970s dealing with NASA's manned spaceflight programs. It seems to
me that the information in those sources is much more accurate than
newly-written articles. I figure this is also applicable for any
historical research, as there seems to be too much forgotten as the
years go by.

On Dec 5, 11:49*am, "
wrote:
I had the foresight to save a lot of material I collected in the 1960s
and 1970s dealing with NASA's manned spaceflight programs. It seems to
me that the information in those sources is much more accurate than
newly-written articles. I figure this is also applicable for any
historical research, as there seems to be too much forgotten as the
years go by.

It depends. Much historical work done more recently, I have found,
is of a better quality than what was done in the 60s or 70s.

The host of excellent works on Project Apollo, for example, tend to be
books no older than 1989. The excellent work by Charles Murray and
Andrew Chaikin come to mind.

Material from the 60s and 70s can offer some context, but I would
argue
that such materials are now clearly not the last or best word on those
topics.

Andre

On Dec 5, 12:34*pm, Andre Lieven wrote:
On Dec 5, 11:49*am, "
wrote:

I had the foresight to save a lot of material I collected in the 1960s
and 1970s dealing with NASA's manned spaceflight programs. It seems to
me that the information in those sources is much more accurate than
newly-written articles. I figure this is also applicable for any
historical research, as there seems to be too much forgotten as the
years go by.

It depends. Much historical work done more recently, I have found,
is of a better quality than what was done in the 60s or 70s.

The host of excellent works on Project Apollo, for example, tend to be
books no older than 1989. The excellent work by Charles Murray and
Andrew Chaikin come to mind.

Material from the 60s and 70s can offer some context, but I would
argue
that such materials are now clearly not the last or best word on those
topics.

Andre

There's nothing like having accounts from the time an event occurred.
They will be imperfect and will not reflect information that was
classified, but they are an important part of the picture. Later
materials are often more complete because of declassification, while
old materials can help weed out inaccuracies that got into the record
later. There's not an either-or situation here. It's always
fortunate when original stuff is kept, and sometimes tragic when it's
not (the NRL a few years ago accidentally sent to burn facility
thousands of documents from the pivotal post-Sputnik period).
An example from a book I was lead author on, "The First Space Race:
Launching the World's FIrst Satellites." Almost all books on the 1950s
report that the first American satellite was confirmed in orbit when
JPL sent the message, "Goldstone has the bird." It bothered us that
this pithy phrase did not appear in any newspaper or magazine from the
time of launch. We later worked out that the first mention was in
General Bruce Medaris' 1961 memoir, and it could not have been said in
January 1958: Goldstone didn't exist yet. So, while the topic was not
world-shaking, but we were able to correct the historical record on
that one. (Medaris had, we suspect, inadvertently applied an anecdote
from a later Explorer launch to Explorer 1.)

Matt Bille
www.mattwriter.com

On Dec 6, 12:28*am, Matt wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:34*pm, Andre Lieven wrote:

On Dec 5, 11:49*am, "
wrote:

I had the foresight to save a lot of material I collected in the 1960s
and 1970s dealing with NASA's manned spaceflight programs. It seems to
me that the information in those sources is much more accurate than
newly-written articles. I figure this is also applicable for any
historical research, as there seems to be too much forgotten as the
years go by.

It depends. Much historical work done more recently, I have found,
is of a better quality than what was done in the 60s or 70s.

The host of excellent works on Project Apollo, for example, tend to be
books no older than 1989. The excellent work by Charles Murray and
Andrew Chaikin come to mind.

Material from the 60s and 70s can offer some context, but I would
argue that such materials are now clearly not the last or best word on
those topics.

Andre

There's nothing like having accounts from the time an event occurred.

I never said otherwise. My point is that the best considered history
usually doesn't come right away.

Look at all the excellent books that have come out since 1989
on Apollo. I would suggest that the ten best books on Apollo ALL
date from no earlier than that. Perhaps Collins' Carrying The Fire
gets in as the lone earlier than 1989 book.

They will be imperfect and will not reflect information that was
classified, but they are an important part of the picture. Later
materials are often more complete because of declassification, while
old materials can help weed out inaccuracies that got into the record
later. *There's not an either-or situation here. *It's always
fortunate when original stuff is kept, and sometimes tragic when it's
not (the NRL a few years ago accidentally sent to burn facility
thousands of documents from the pivotal post-Sputnik period).
An example from a book I was lead author on, "The First Space Race:
Launching the World's FIrst Satellites." Almost all books on the 1950s
report that the first American satellite was confirmed in orbit when
JPL sent the message, "Goldstone has the bird." It bothered us that
this pithy phrase did not appear in any newspaper or magazine from the
time of launch. *We later worked out that the first mention was in
General Bruce Medaris' 1961 memoir, and it could not have been said in
January 1958: Goldstone didn't exist yet. *So, while the topic was not
world-shaking, but we were able to correct the historical record on
that one. (Medaris had, we suspect, inadvertently applied an anecdote
from a later Explorer launch to Explorer 1.)

Thats a good example where later and more detailed work is more
factually correct... g

Andre

On Dec 5, 8:49 am, "
wrote:
I had the foresight to save a lot of material I collected in the 1960s
and 1970s dealing with NASA's manned spaceflight programs. It seems to
me that the information in those sources is much more accurate than
newly-written articles. I figure this is also applicable for any
historical research, as there seems to be too much forgotten as the
years go by.

When history has been a lie, facts and subsequent stories tend to
change.

~ BG

On Dec 6, 12:42 am, Andre Lieven wrote:
On Dec 6, 12:28 am, Matt wrote:



On Dec 5, 12:34 pm, Andre Lieven wrote:

On Dec 5, 11:49 am, "
wrote:

I had the foresight to save a lot of material I collected in the 1960s
and 1970s dealing with NASA's manned spaceflight programs. It seems to
me that the information in those sources is much more accurate than
newly-written articles. I figure this is also applicable for any
historical research, as there seems to be too much forgotten as the
years go by.

It depends. Much historical work done more recently, I have found,
is of a better quality than what was done in the 60s or 70s.

The host of excellent works on Project Apollo, for example, tend to be
books no older than 1989. The excellent work by Charles Murray and
Andrew Chaikin come to mind.

Material from the 60s and 70s can offer some context, but I would
argue that such materials are now clearly not the last or best word on
those topics.

Andre

There's nothing like having accounts from the time an event occurred.

I never said otherwise. My point is that the best considered history
usually doesn't come right away.

That's only because the truth has not been told.


Look at all the excellent books that have come out since 1989
on Apollo. I would suggest that the ten best books on Apollo ALL
date from no earlier than that. Perhaps Collins' Carrying The Fire
gets in as the lone earlier than 1989 book.



They will be imperfect and will not reflect information that was
classified, but they are an important part of the picture. Later
materials are often more complete because of declassification, while
old materials can help weed out inaccuracies that got into the record
later. There's not an either-or situation here. It's always
fortunate when original stuff is kept, and sometimes tragic when it's
not (the NRL a few years ago accidentally sent to burn facility
thousands of documents from the pivotal post-Sputnik period).
An example from a book I was lead author on, "The First Space Race:
Launching the World's FIrst Satellites." Almost all books on the 1950s
report that the first American satellite was confirmed in orbit when
JPL sent the message, "Goldstone has the bird." It bothered us that
this pithy phrase did not appear in any newspaper or magazine from the
time of launch. We later worked out that the first mention was in
General Bruce Medaris' 1961 memoir, and it could not have been said in
January 1958: Goldstone didn't exist yet. So, while the topic was not
world-shaking, but we were able to correct the historical record on
that one. (Medaris had, we suspect, inadvertently applied an anecdote
from a later Explorer launch to Explorer 1.)

Thats a good example where later and more detailed work is more
factually correct... g

Andre

Just not based on the truth, because that would not be DARPA or NASA
policy to share actual truths.

You do realize that our government and its many agencies have lied,
and then remain in total denial of any wrong doings, although having
no problems recalling and taking credit for all the good stuff.

~ BG

On Dec 5, 2:34*pm, Andre Lieven wrote:
On Dec 5, 11:49*am, "
wrote:

I had the foresight to save a lot of material I collected in the 1960s
and 1970s dealing with NASA's manned spaceflight programs. It seems to
me that the information in those sources is much more accurate than
newly-written articles. I figure this is also applicable for any
historical research, as there seems to be too much forgotten as the
years go by.

It depends. Much historical work done more recently, I have found,
is of a better quality than what was done in the 60s or 70s.

The host of excellent works on Project Apollo, for example, tend to be
books no older than 1989. The excellent work by Charles Murray and
Andrew Chaikin come to mind.

Material from the 60s and 70s can offer some context, but I would
argue
that such materials are now clearly not the last or best word on those
topics.

Andre

I think contemporary sources best explain why we quit going to the
moon in 1972. Many people now question why we "quit" going to the moon
and were not around when it happened.
They do not realize the political climate of the time and how anti-
science and anti-NASA the general public was.
Many politicians of the time, like William Proxmire and Walter
Mondale, got a lot of political currency by knocking the Apollo
Program as a "moondoggle".

wrote:
I think contemporary sources best explain why we quit going to the
moon in 1972. Many people now question why we "quit" going to the moon
and were not around when it happened.
They do not realize the political climate of the time and how anti-
science and anti-NASA the general public was.
Many politicians of the time, like William Proxmire and Walter
Mondale, got a lot of political currency by knocking the Apollo
Program as a "moondoggle".


I don't think it was that the populace was "anti-science" as such (and I
was in junior high school when this was all going on), it's that Apollo
and the Vietnam War were sucking up a big part of the overall federal
budget that a lot of people thought could have been better spent
elsewhere...Apollo alone topped out at around 3-4% of the overall
federal budget, which is a staggering number when you think that the
overall intention of it was to bring several hundred pounds of rock from
point "A" to point "B" ("B" being Earth).
Worthwhile to do?
Yup.
At that price?
No way in Hell.

Pat

On Dec 6, 7:32 pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 5, 2:34 pm, Andre Lieven wrote:



On Dec 5, 11:49 am, "
wrote:

I had the foresight to save a lot of material I collected in the 1960s
and 1970s dealing with NASA's manned spaceflight programs. It seems to
me that the information in those sources is much more accurate than
newly-written articles. I figure this is also applicable for any
historical research, as there seems to be too much forgotten as the
years go by.

It depends. Much historical work done more recently, I have found,
is of a better quality than what was done in the 60s or 70s.

The host of excellent works on Project Apollo, for example, tend to be
books no older than 1989. The excellent work by Charles Murray and
Andrew Chaikin come to mind.

Material from the 60s and 70s can offer some context, but I would
argue
that such materials are now clearly not the last or best word on those
topics.

Andre

I think contemporary sources best explain why we quit going to the
moon in 1972. Many people now question why we "quit" going to the moon
and were not around when it happened.
They do not realize the political climate of the time and how anti-
science and anti-NASA the general public was.
Many politicians of the time, like William Proxmire and Walter
Mondale, got a lot of political currency by knocking the Apollo
Program as a "moondoggle".

Are you suggesting that our governments and their faith-based puppet
masters do not lie to us, and otherwise do not exclude evidence?

Perhaps "moondoggle" = moongate

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

Pat Flannery writes:

wrote:
I think contemporary sources best explain why we quit going to the
moon in 1972. Many people now question why we "quit" going to the moon
and were not around when it happened.
They do not realize the political climate of the time and how anti-
science and anti-NASA the general public was.

I don't think it was that the populace was "anti-science" as such (and I
was in junior high school when this was all going on), it's that Apollo
and the Vietnam War were sucking up a big part of the overall federal
budget that a lot of people thought could have been better spent
elsewhere...

I'd say also that relatively few people were anti-science or
anti-NASA, but more generally indifferent to whether anything particular
was done especially after the first landing was made.

Moon landings are nice things to have going on, but there's not
a lot of clear practical benefit, or harm, to most people. There's not
much reason to form a strong attachment to them.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------