Showing posts with label Olympics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Olympics. Show all posts

Sunday, 26 August 2012

To Infinity and Beyond ... please

I was sad to read yesterday of the death of Neil Armstrong, the first human to have set foot on another world. But I was even sadder this morning to see comments like this on Twitter (via @thepoke):

 
 
Have we really got to a stage, in just a couple of generations, where kids really don't know about astonishing, world-changing events that happened just 43 years ago? How can any First World citizen with access to a telly and the internet and libraries not know who Neil Armstrong is?
 
I was eight when Armstrong stepped off the Eagle's ladder and fluffed the immortal line, 'That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for Mankind'. In UK time, it happened in the middle of the night but my parents couldn't have stopped me staying up to watch it if they'd tried. All my schoolfriends watched it too, as did an estimated 500 million people worldwide; the highest viewing figures of any event in the history of TV. This was 1969 of course; the TV was black and white and video recorders only existed at the BBC. The idea of having one in your home was science fiction. Even cassette recorders were a few years away so Dad recorded the event on an old reel-to-reel tape recorder with a squeaky Cornish eight-year old providing the intro: 'My Daddy's going to tape record the landing', and occasional observations and comments (I really must get the recording off my mother and see if I can get it converted to CD or MP3). I still remember the thrill of watching those ghostly, grainy pictures as Neil and Buzz stepped onto the surface of the Moon. What an amazing adventure. 
 
 
We seem to have lost that sense of excitement here in the cynical 21st century. It bugs the Hell out of me that every time I read of some extraordinary new advance, or some new planned expedition, almost immediately there's a barrage of killjoys who pipe up with 'But what's the point of that? We could spend the money on hospitals and cancer research etc.' Now, I'm not for an instant suggesting that we shouldn't fund hospitals and cancer research etc. In fact, I find it genuinely disgusting that research into disease prevention is so poorly funded that they have to rely on charity. However, there is more to life than mere utility. If we'd taken that same attitude to the recent Olympic Games in London, we would have been poorer for it. I'm not a sports fan at all and barely watched the event, despite its extensive coverage, but I reckon it was money well spent just to see the UK, for once, happy and united and proud.
 
There is a story, possibly apocryphal, that during the Second World War, Winston Churchill’s finance minister suggested that Britain should cut arts funding to support the war effort. Churchill’s response was: “Then what are we fighting for?” Even if that story isn't true, it's known that Churchill argued to keep the theatres open and was determined that we should not give up the things that make us joyous and proud. When the direc­tor of the National Gallery, Ken­neth Clark, sug­gested that the paint­ings in the National Gallery should be sent from Lon­don to Canada, Churchill said, “No. Bury them in caves and cel­lars. None must go. We are going to beat them.” And it's certainly true that he argued with the transport planners to allow enough capacity on the trains to deliver flowers to the cities so that 'the ladies could be cheered up'.


There is more to life, much more to being human, than merely staying alive. There is art and science and discovery. And there's that sense of excitement and adventure that we once had as a species; the thing that drove us to explore new lands, build new machines, find new species. The space programme is hugely important; never forget that it led to the development of many new areas of science and medicine. It's pretty much true that you wouldn't have that iPod or that digital clock or that halogen cooker if it wasn't for people like Neil Armstrong pushing the limits of human endeavour. The MRI, the electric heart pump and voice controlled wheelchairs are just some of the medical advances that came from the space programme. There are many, many more.

Thanks to a billion billion happy accidents and advantageous mutations, we humans have become the amazing, self-aware, inquisitive beings that we have. We are very possibly the only such beings in the entireity of the universe or universes. The Moon Landings infected the whole world with a sense of wonder; they made us feel good. What a tragedy - no, what a crime - it would be to squander that spirit of enquiry and lust for adventure.

Oh, by the way, the Moon landings did take place - sorry to disappoint all you conspiracy theorists. It was a space 'race', if you recall. This was the height of the Cold War - US astronaut Frank Borman once described the Apollo Missions as 'just a battle in the Cold War' - and only seven short years after the Cuban Missile Crisis (if you don't know who Neil Armstrong is, you'll be completely lost by now - google it). The Russians and the Americans were at each other's throats and Apollo was being tracked every inch of the way by the Kremlin. They'd have kicked up an almighty stink at any hint of trickery or fakery. That said, I'm happy to concede that many of the photographs might have been doctored for clarity and to rub Comrade Brezhnev's nose in it.

So if you meet someone today who doesn't know 'who the fuck Neil Armstrong is', put them right. We must never forget who he was, what he did and what the Moon landings represented. 

Let's go to Mars. Let's colonise the Moon. Let's climb the highest mountains. Let's plumb the deepest ocean depths. Let's find ways to cure disease and conquer old age. Let's all find ways to live together in peace and enlightenment.

That's the vision that Neil Armstrong and Apollo were part of.

 


Friday, 24 August 2012

World of (Spoil)Sport

My profound apologies for the lack of bloggage this past week. I've been exceptionally busy writing lots and lots of content for the QI website, which is being hugely improved and updated soon. And I've been researching for the next few episodes of The Museum of Curiosity which starts recording in a fortnight. It'll go out on BBC Radio 4 in October.

I've also been doing some promotional work for my new book and, during the course of writing a piece about the Olympics, I found myself chin-scratching over several 'facts' that appear time and time again on the internet; facts that are, frankly, wrong. For instance, I found a number of sites that claimed:

If the Olympics were held on the Moon, high jumpers could jump over a bar 48 feet high!

Well, actually, no. No they couldn't.

The figure of 48 feet is based on the premise that if the High Jump record is currently 2.45m (8ft) and the Moon is 1/6th Earth gravity, then we should be able to jump six times higher. That means a height of around 14.7m (48ft). But actually, it’s not quite as simple as that.

If a 6ft tall person jumps over a 8ft bar, they’re not actually jumping 8ft. They’re only jumping around 5ft. Much of a High Jumper's clearance is achieved by body position. In any jump, twist or somersault you do, your body rotates around your centre of gravity, which is around where your navel is; about halfway up your body. In the case of our 6ft jumper, that’s around 3ft. And because their navel is already 3ft from the ground, they need only jump 5ft to get their centre of gravity over the 8ft bar.



The men’s world record for the High Jump was set in 1993 by Javier Sotomayor, who is 6ft 5ins tall. So the highest that he jumped was actually somewhere around 5ft. On the Moon, therefore, he'd jump around 30ft.

The women’s record is 2.09m (6ft 10ins), set by Stefka Kostadinova in 1987. She is 5ft 11ins tall. Therefore, she can jump around 3ft 9ins, which would give her a Moon jump of somewhere between 22 and 23 ft. The best most of us can manage is 2ft to 3ft. Therefore, we would jump significantly less - around 12 to 18ft - depending on our strength to weight ratio, height and fitness.

Then, of course, we’re not taking into account the weight of our spacesuits. The NASA A7L EVA suit worn by the Apollo astronauts consisted of 21 layers of different materials plus oxygen supply and water circulation system. It weighed a staggering 91kg (200lbs) or just over 14st. Of course, on the Moon, that would be around 15kg (33lbs) or 2st 3lbs. Things wouldn’t be much improved by building a dome on the Moon to play the Olympics inside. While gravity would remain at 1/6th, air pressure from the artificial atmosphere would offer slight resistance. Plus, the climate control would need to cope with the fact that temperatures on the Moon fluctuate between 120ºC (248ºF) by day to -150ºC (-238ºF) at night.

Yes, I know. I'm a killjoy and a spoilsport. Sorry. But I do like things to be accurate and - despite the crippling handicap of my CSE Grade 5 Maths qualification - I think these figures are right. If they aren't please let me know.

You wait until tomorrow when I pull an oft-told story about fleas to pieces ...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Footnote: A day or two after I wrote this post, I came across this excellent little guest blog on the Scientific American website by astrobiologist Dr David Warmflash (great name!). It's all about gymnastics on the Moon and worth a read.

Saturday, 5 November 2011

The 2012 Olympics and Paralympics - Where's the Art Competition?

A set of posters, and programme illustrations, to celebrate the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games has been unveiled. The artists involved are: Fiona Banner, Michael Craig-Martin, Martin Creed, Tracey Emin, Anthea Hamilton, Howard Hodgkin, Gary Hume, Sarah Morris, Chris Ofili, Bridget Riley, Bob and Roberta Smith, and Rachel Whiteread. Here are some of the posters (click for larger image):













I rather like them all but I do have a real issue with the choice of artists. It's the same old names again. It's the same bunch of celebrity artists we wheel out for every event. Is that really in the spirit of the Olympics? After all, everyone competing will be an amateur and most will be unknown names. Shouldn't the choice of artists reflect that? The UK can boast thousands of brilliant but unknown artists who would have triple jumped at the chance to represent their country. Why couldn't we have had a competition for them?

It's such a shame. The cult of celebrity has once more got its claws into something it really shouldn't have. And, yet again, the opportunity to find the next Tracey Emin or Chris Ofili has been missed.