Interesting politics


Watching this, one of the interesting things about it is the politics that are going on.

First off, this is no government project - hell no! Good old private enterprise in the form of a room full of multi millionaires builds the ship. And not for profit, all of them commit to it out of pure patriotism because they think launching attacks from the moon is the way of the future - rich industrialists being well known as selfless patriots.

(By the way, that whole 'vital military importance of the moon' thing didn't turn out so well, now did it?)

Even better is the scene where the government objects to the use of a nuclear engine. They're building this thing in the US and the government objects because it might, you know, spread radiation all over the place. They suggest testing it at a remote pacific island, as was done with nuclear bombs. Everyone's reaction to this is an incredulous sneer. Safety, pshaw! It's only a nuclear reactor for heaven's sake, what could possibly go wrong?

The incredible lack of preparation for the crew is interesting, too. Seriously, I know one guy was a last minute replacement and all, but wow, they let a crewmember go into the rocket honestly believing that it wouldn't even work, and with no idea of what weightlessness was. No back up crews, no weightlessness training, nothing.

Also interesting is the way that the majority of people denounce this effort as dangerous, foolhardy, irresponsible, criminal - never for any real reason, in the film's view, but just because it's new and new things must be opposed.

All of the above are, of course, amongst the commonest Heinlein themes.

I'm not saying any of this makes it a bad movie, I actually love this film as a sci fi classic. But it is a fascinating picture of both the times and Heinlein's view of how things work and would, especially after the reality of a multi billion dollar government program with a public united behind it.

reply

"Also interesting is the way that the majority of people denounce this effort as dangerous, foolhardy, irresponsible, criminal - never for any real reason, in the film's view, but just because it's new and new things must be opposed."

The movie also strongly hints that the hysterical fear regarding the rocket and its nuclear engine has been at least partly whipped up by an organized propaganda campaign -- presumably the work of enemy (read Communist) agents in the U.S.

Attacking an enemy country with missiles launched from bases on the moon was always a pretty far-fetched idea. By the time President Kennedy gave his famous 1961 speech about landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade, everyone knew there was no real strategic need to get to the moon first; it was basically a space pissing contest between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. But pissing contests can be a powerful motive for great achievements.




All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

reply

The movie also strongly hints that the hysterical fear regarding the rocket and its nuclear engine has been at least partly whipped up by an organized propaganda campaign -- presumably the work of enemy (read Communist) agents in the U.S.

Yes, Heinlein liked to drag up that implication now and again in his work... that his worldview was so obviously right that the opposition must surely be organised and funded by shadowy foreign anti-American forces. I remember in Puppet Masters he makes comments along the lines that having mind-controlling aliens take over in Russia wouldn't make a lot of difference to the country, as that was pretty much what it was like there anyway!

Attacking an enemy country with missiles launched from bases on the moon was always a pretty far-fetched idea. By the time President Kennedy gave his famous 1961 speech about landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade, everyone knew there was no real strategic need to get to the moon first; it was basically a space pissing contest between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. But pissing contests can be a powerful motive for great achievements.

It's interesting that even Earth orbit isn't used for weapons - Heinlein and others depicted orbiting nukes ready to be brought down on our heads. In truth, launching the nukes on ballistic missiles is just a far more practical proposition.

reply

The concept of orbital nuclear weapons was still going strong in the mid-1960s. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, after the famous jump cut from the ape throwing a bone in the air, we see four shots of satellites in Earth orbit. Those were originally intended to be atomic weapons platforms launched by various nations, but no mention is made of the satellites’ purpose in the finished film.



All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

reply

Yeah, it was a big trope at the time.

You would think that of all people, hard sci fi writers would have seen the down side to such weapons. I remember in "Space Cadet", Heinlein has his hero talking about which bomb will be in position to hit a particular town in the near future... and right there it's plain as day that any given orbital bomb is only rarely in position to hit any particular target. Even if you designated a broad target like "Somewhere in the USA", any given bomb is going to be out of position for well over half its orbit. So at least 50% of your bombs are useless at any given time, even in the most generous estimate.

And yet the launch system that puts the bomb in orbit in the first place can equally well deliver it to any point on Earth - and the missile is always in the right position for launch, 24/7. All of this really should have been obvious to anybody who thought about it, Heinlein and Clarke and others had the answers right there in their own work. They just failed to see it.

reply

A pointed example of the politics in Destination Moon is the relative emphasis placed on each of the reasons cited for a lunar voyage, as laid out in the conference of industrialists called by Jim Barnes.

First, Barnes says with some awe, "What's the Moon? Another North Pole, another South Pole; our only satellite, our nearest neighbor in the sky." When one of the men then asks, "But why go there, Jim?", his reply is a simple, basic, "We'll find out when we get there, we'll let you know when we get back. It's an adventure I don't want to be left out of." Thus are all the reasons for science, discovery and adventure neatly disposed of in two sentences.

Then, after the Woody Woodpecker cartoon, Barnes tells the assemblage, "Not only is this the greatest adventure awaiting mankind, it's also the greatest challenge ever hurled at American industry" -- thereby making both a final pass at the adventure aspect while luring his skeptical fellow industrialists. But it's the final part of his sentence, and what follows, that sets the tone Heinlein felt was really important: " -- and General Thayer is going to tell you why." Not Cargraves, the scientist, or even Barnes the manufacturer, but Thayer, the military man. And tell them he does: "The explanation is simple: we're not the only ones who know the Moon can be reached. We're not the only ones planning to go there. The race is on -- and we'd better win it. Because -- there is absolutely no way to stop an attack from outer space. The first country that can use the Moon for the launching of missiles will control the Earth. That, gentlemen, is the most important military fact of this century!"

Thus does Heinlein lay out what to him is the true rationale for the lunar trip. Not exploration for its own sake; nor scientific advancement and knowledge; nor industrial developments of new inventions like teflon and space food sticks; nor even just good old adventure. Military necessity, first and foremost, and an aggressive strategy at that.

Yet the technicalities involved in utilizing the Moon as a military base don't seem to make much sense. It takes at least two days for a rocket to travel between the Earth and Moon. Why would it be any quicker for a nuclear missile? Unless your intention was simply to posthumously knock off your attacker, a retaliatory strike that takes two days or more seems pretty pointless. Certainly a moonbase wouldn't provide you with any capacity to preempt an attack, or hit the enemy before he can launch his entire arsenal at you. And all of this is quite apart from scientific niceties, such as the fact that the Moon isn't in a geosynchronous orbit around Earth, or that you'd have to have a lot of bases scattered around the Moon to have any chance to make this idea work at all, and that you'd only be able to launch the missiles when the Moon's orbital position was right so that you could even hit the Earth...let alone the difficulty of making sure your missiles struck the correct place on the planet.

Even the movie seems to pull back a bit from the concept of blatant militarism as the main reason to go to the Moon. After they land, Cargraves takes possession of the Moon "for the benefit of all mankind." While not exactly the sentiments of the Apollo 11 plaque that "We came in peace for all mankind", it's a bit of a stretch to conflate mankind's benefit with preemptive attacks by atomic missiles aimed at Earth. Still later on the lunar surface, when they discover what appears to be uranium, Sweeney cracks, "So you could blow up the Moon, too? Ain't that dandy?!" Not exactly an endorsement of the use of the Moon as a launching pad for nuclear missiles.

Curiously, there's a counterpart to Thayer's advocacy of the Moon as a military site in Destination Moon's cinematic rival, Rocketship X-M -- but one that takes a very different tone. In the press conference early in that film, Dr. Fleming tells reporters that "Today, there is even the possibility of establishing an unassailable base on the Moon, to control world peace." While envisioning a similar military use for the Moon, in RXM it's couched in terms of maintaining peace, not attacking enemies: deterrance rather than retaliation. This may be a reflection of the two films' different provenances: DM's conservative, military- and espionage-obsessed Heinlein, vs. RXM's script by the more pacifically-minded (and blacklisted) Dalton Trumbo.

reply

The aesthetic feel of this film is very appealing, with that slightly washed-out Technicolor vibe of 50s America that was still around in the coverage of the Apollo moon landing. No token black characters, either.

reply

If you read Heinlein's work, his big idea on orbital and lunar weapons was that it's "at the top of the gravity well". He compared somebody on the ground fighting with somebody in orbit to somebody at the bottom of a hill engaging in stone throwing with somebody at the top.

And that's fair enough, as far as it goes. What he seems to miss is that if one nation launches an intercontinental ballistic missile at another, it goes practically into space on the way, before falling back down again - there's a reason ICBM's are often used in slightly modified form as actual space launch rockets for satellites.

So ground launched weapons still have that exact same downhill advantage. Heinlein seems to have thought that using one of those launchers to launch something up there, then leaving it hanging for years before bringing it down again was better... somehow. But even he even goes to the lengths of pointing out that you would need to occasionally access the bombs in space for maintenance, and to correct the orbit and whatnot - a whole bomb support infrastructure and personnel that you have to put into space and keep there at huge expense. The thought of just skipping that "pause" in the middle so you can do all that on the ground, just like any other weapon, seems to have passed him by.

reply

I'm not sure Heinlein's hill analogy is particularly on target, so to speak. Pretty unscientific in itself, even though gravity can be a help. Your points about the efficacy of orbital-based missiles, vs. ICBMs, are well taken.

But in the film there's no metion of man-made platforms in near-Earth orbit to be used for defense. Instead, the Moon itself is posited as a base for the express purpose of striking back at enemies on Earth -- a permanent orbital platform, as it were. How greatly missiles launched from the Moon would be assisted in their journey by gravity, or more precisely whether that mattered much, is fairly moot in that the travel time would still be a couple of days. Plus the missiles would have to be built to withstand the friction of entering the atmosphere, compensate for the effects of gravitational and atmospheric displacements, and still be reliable enough to hit their targets after traveling a distance of 240,000 miles. Not terribly practical.

Of course, as you point out with man-made platforms, such lunar missile sites would have to be manned and regularly serviced, all of which involves a great deal more than launching a single rocket to the Moon. But you have to start somewhere...!

Speaking of traveling downhill, it always intrigued me that in the Woody Woodpecker cartoon, the narrator states that "Shooting a rocket from the Moon to the Earth is a great deal easier than shooting one from the Earth to the Moon, because it's downhill almost all the way." That sounds like Heinlein, from what you wrote. Frankly, I would think it's easier because it only takes 1/6 as much power to lift off the Moon than off Earth (and with no atmospheric conditions to hinder launch), and because Earth's larger gravitational field would exert a stronger pull than would the Moon's -- not because the direction was "downhill", which in space is a rather meaningless concept.

One other thing that may be intriguing....

Right after uttering the above line in the cartoon, the narrator adds, "The V2 rocket could do it today." I always thought that was kind of cool (I assume it was true), although it's not mentioned that the V2 would never actually make it to Earth because it had no capacity to survive reentry into the atmosphere and would therefore burn up.

However, on a wall in an office building in Manhattan where I often go on business, there's an enlargement of a photograph claiming to be an underwater shot of a crashed and sunken V2 rocket off the WWII German V2 base at Peenemunde. The photo purports to show a nosecone at the top of the rocket, broken off from the main rocket body, with an open hatch. The claim was that this photo proved that the Nazis had had a secret program to shoot a man into Earth orbit (hence the hatch) and had tried it in 1944, but that the attempt failed and the Nazinaut was lost. (It also stated that the German High Command imprisoned Werner von Braun for six months for using one of their precious V2s for exploring space instead of exploding London.)

Of course, it turned out the photo and story were a hoax, perpetrated several years ago and swallowed by a number of news organizations. Even some people with whom I've looked at it at first think it's real, until they read the accompanying explanation mounted next to the picture. The purpose of the exhibit was to demonstrate the power of deceit and the need to examine evidence (this is in a major law firm), but I have to say the first time I saw the picture I immediately knew it was a fake. I may not have many talents, but I've spent enough of my life watching sci-fi movies to know a model when I see one! The rocks masquerading as underwater boulders were a big tip-off (small lumps of coal, mostly), as were the grains of sand on the "ocean floor", which, to scale, would have been the size of basketballs. Not to mention no fish, no aquatic foliage, and no "underwater" effects. A toy in somebody's fishtank. Still, it is neat!

reply

You might want to check out this web page:

http://editinternational.com/read.php?id=47a883d14ce11
or the original here:
http://issuu.com/edit_international/docs/publication_hanna_reitsch/3?m ode=embed&documentId=090107212350-fe902db02968468fb93464edc07459de &layout=grey

which I found out about from some commenter to some other article I believe. The article claims that this German woman named "Hanna Reitsch", who became a celebrated test pilot for Nazi Germany, was actually the first astronaut back in the early 1940's and went up to 80,000 feet in a VI rocket*. Its really quite amazing, and there are a bunch of videos about her available on YouTube.


* This is assuming this is true, and even if it is, 80,000 feet up is only a bit over 15 miles, whereas Alan Shepard made the first Mercury suborbital flight to over 115 miles. So perhaps even if true, it might technically not be regarded as a space flight and thus she could not be regarded as an "astronaut" (The Austrian Felix Baumgartner who just jumped from a balloon recently went 50% higher than 80,000 feet - 127,851 ft to be exact).

reply

I haven't looked at your link yet, mickeyone, but Hanna Reitsch was indeed a prominent test pilot in Nazi Germany (remarkable for a society that discouraged women from being anything other than wives and mothers of the Master Race).

She tested the V1 (what its British victims later called a "buzz bomb"), the unmanned drones that were the precursor to the rocket-powered V2s. The V1 was not a true rocket in the sense the V2 was, though it was fired somewaht like a rocket, or jet. It was launched from an elevated platform with skids, constructed at the appropriate angle to reach its target. It was a fairly simple concept: loaded with explosives and enough fuel to reach London, it simply stopped and dropped from the sky when the fuel ran out, wherever that happened to be. Today it's considered the first primitive cruise missile. I knew people who lived in London during the war and they said the V1s were terrifying, because you heard them coming, then had seconds to take shelter when you heard the droning stop as they ran out of fuel and fell -- with no one knowing where they'd hit.

There were apparently guidance problems with the early prototypes and to correct these test pilots went up in the V1s, which in actual combat were of course unmanned. Supposedly it was Reitsch who finally solved the problem after several men had been killed in the effort, but I never heard that she or anyone ever flew anything remotely close to 80,000 feet -- 5000 or lower would have been more like it. I'm sure 80,000 was beyond the V1's technology, and in any case the craft didn't have the design or equipment for a pilot to survive at that altitude. The V2 -- the world's first IRBM -- could have reached that altitude and more before coming back down to Earth, but no one ever rode as a pilot (or even occupant) on a V2. Nazi Germany's jet planes never attained such an altitude either, operating at a maximum of around 25,000 feet or so, about the same as most contemporary conventional planes' limits.

Her story in this endeavor is recounted, evidently with reasonable accuracy, in the 1965 film Operation Crossbow. I've seen some photos and articles about her over the years. She survived the war and was still alive in the 60s but I never learned what happened to her since. I presume she's long dead by now.

Thanks for the link, which should be interesting. I may know more after reading it, but for now I don't believe it was even technically feasible in 1944 to take a V1 to 80,000, let alone survive it. The V2, yes, for a few seconds as it arced back down to its target. But that was never a piloted craft and no one could have survived going up in it at all.

ADDENDUM. I just read the link you supplied for the entire article (the second link). I wasn't surprised that Hanna Reitsch was an unrepentent Nazi, but just how unrepentent shocks me. Among other things, she rests her evident denial of the Holocaust by quoting Hermann Goering telling her during the war that such tales were Allied lies. That's the extent of her inquiry into the issue, even decades later. She conveniently rearranges facts to suit her delusional Nazistic beliefs and regards Hitler as a dignified hero, and says the only thing Germans have to feel guilty about the war is that they lost. The fact that she tried to help the ruthlessly dictatorial socialist murderer Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana build his air force in the 60s because she believed he could become "the Hitler of Africa" would be laughable if it wasn't so deadly in its portents.

But except for a brief, unchallenged and unsubstantiated claim by Reitsch about going up 80,000 feet I saw no evidence that she actually flew that high. This sounds like the lie of a racist and arrogant woman desperate to prove that Nazi Germany did everything first and best. (Though it's correct that the V2 could reach 50 miles before coming back down to its target.)

Plainly, the author of this article, Ron Laytner, is an idiot who didn't examine her claims and just took everything she said at face value. He certainly seems to admire her uncritically -- though he matter-of-factly reports her actions and beliefs, he makes no effort to refute her lies, provide background and context, or give alternative points of view. Laytner treats her not merely admiringly but sympathetically, even deferentially, making it clear he too thinks it's unfair that she's been "left out of the history books", and giving Reitsch carte blanche to whine about this alleged "injustice".

Aeronautically, meanwhile, he blithely calls her the "first astronaut", which is preposterous, as her claims have no proof, fly in the face of known technological limitations and, as you say, are debatable because 80,000 isn't "space" anyway. Laytner's hyperbole at the outset in saying that without her jets wouldn't have been developed until years later, and we might still just be talking about going to the moon, are so asinine and ridiculous that the mind boggles. Reitsch was a pilot -- not an inventor or engineer. Credit von Braun and his crew with the actual development of such machines.

From a language or reportorial standpoint, Laytner is a talentless, inept and shallow writer who essentially took dictation from Hanna Reitsch, an obviously bitter and bigoted woman interested in inflating her role in history. He seems inordinately proud, even boastful, in stating that he was the only "reporter" she ever agreed to speak to. Given his un-curious and uncritical approach to her story, it's no wonder she agreed. Her description of flying into Berlin near the end is, to say the least, suspect and self-serving. (She did fly in, but her details of the experience are hardly to be taken at face value.) Most of her claims are unsubstantiated, but this guy just puts them down as if they were Gospel...or should I say, "Mein Kampf".

The article is interesting for its subject, but it needed a competent journalist with writing skills, knowledge and a willingness to investigate to pull it off fully and objectively. As it is, it's imbecile journalism, an insult to the truth as well as the millions of victims of Nazism, written by a lazy, slack-jawed incompetent at a brain-dead level suitable only for morons. Except for providing a peek at Ms. Reitsch's psychoses and mendacity, it's mostly uninformative in any meaningful way. Hanna Reitsch could have told Laytner she'd flown to the moon and he would have reported it straight, without comment. But at least I learned the dirty, reprehensible fanatic died in 1979, several decades too late.

And, oh yes, we found out that she hated the movie Operation Crossbow, for being made without her permission or input, calling it inaccurate. Yet more British and American lies endured by selfless Nazis such as she. (Actually, she comes of very well in the film...far better than the truth warranted.)

reply


In defense of Heinlein, the world had just gone through a war which had begun with horses and biplanes and finished with jets and nuclear bombs. All the major countries had secret scientific weaponry which they rushed into production and used in the war. Private companies like GE and Raytheon were deeply involved with government contracts and for marketable byproducts. The ubiquitous microwave oven came directly from Raytheon.

There was an arms race and a space race, so it was not so far fetched that the moon was being looked at for its military value.





The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and clamorous to be led to safety.

reply

Thank you very much for the article, it has been a really refreshing find among all these blocks of texts typical of communist-obsessives.
Unfortunately the website is no longer available, so I will give an archived link here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110710172515/http://editinternational.com/read.php?id=47a883d14ce11

reply