Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Armstrong’s famous “one small step” quote – explained
What did Neil Armstrong really say when he took his first step on the moon?
Millions on Earth who listened to him on TV or radio heard this :
“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
But after returning from space, Armstrong said that wasn’t what he had planned to say. He said there was a lost word in his famous one-liner from the moon: “That’s one small step for ‘a’ man.” It’s just that people just didn’t hear it.”
During a 30th anniversary gathering in 1999, the Apollo 11 commander acknowledged that he didn’t hear himself say it either when he listened to the transmission from the July 20, 1969, moon landing.
“The ‘a’ was intended,” Armstrong said. “I thought I said it. I can’t hear it when I listen on the radio reception here on Earth, so I’ll be happy if you just put it in parentheses.”
While it seems no one heard the “a,” some research backs Armstrong. In 2006, a computer analysis of sound waves found evidence that Armstrong said what he said he said. NASA has also stood by the moonwalker.
Armstrong, who died in 2012 at age 82, said he came up with the statement himself. In a 2001 NASA oral history, he said NASA discouraged coaching astronauts, a position reflected in a NASA memo. It cited how “the truest emotion … is what the explorer feels within himself.”
“I thought about it after landing,” Armstrong said about his famous line. “And because we had a lot of other things to do, it was not something that I really concentrated on, but just something that was kind of passing around subliminally or in the background. But it, you know, was a pretty simple statement, talking about stepping off something. Why, it wasn’t a very complex thing. It was what it was.”
I was already aware of the missing "a" in the sentence, I recall discussing it at the time and everyone agreeing that without the indefinite article, the words didn't make any sense. What was supposed to be the difference between "man" and "mankind" without the "a?"
I saw another interesting thing on one of the many TV programs about the moon landing that have been on cable channels this week.
This project had no backup plan. Most NASA systems and 2nd and 3rd redundant systems. If the lunar lander was unable to get the astronauts back to the orbiter, they had no plan to rescue the astronauts from the surface of the moon. They had written press releases in the event of failure on the mission.
For some reason, that possibility never occurred to me before.
I saw another interesting thing on one of the many TV programs about the moon landing that have been on cable channels this week.
This project had no backup plan. Most NASA systems and 2nd and 3rd redundant systems. If the lunar lander was unable to get the astronauts back to the orbiter, they had no plan to rescue the astronauts from the surface of the moon. They had written press releases in the event of failure on the mission.
For some reason, that possibility never occurred to me before.
As far as I know there were no "suicide pills" either, should they get stranded.
This project had no backup plan. Most NASA systems and 2nd and 3rd redundant systems. If the lunar lander was unable to get the astronauts back to the orbiter, they had no plan to rescue the astronauts from the surface of the moon. They had written press releases in the event of failure on the mission.
If the lunar lander was unable to leave the moon, the only possible way to rescue the astronauts would have been to bring a second lunar lander down to pick them up. That would have meant duplicating the entire mission. Two rockets would have had to launch two capsules with attached lunar landers. Providing a safety backup for the mission would have doubled the cost.
It's amazing how well the moon program went. I think the main reason is they kept it simple. Cylindrical rockets, by that time well understood. The Space Shuttle program on the other hand... talk about complex design.
I saw another interesting thing on one of the many TV programs about the moon landing that have been on cable channels this week.
This project had no backup plan. Most NASA systems and 2nd and 3rd redundant systems. If the lunar lander was unable to get the astronauts back to the orbiter, they had no plan to rescue the astronauts from the surface of the moon. They had written press releases in the event of failure on the mission.
For some reason, that possibility never occurred to me before.
Much of the Space Shuttle program comprised launches with no backup were the crew to be somehow stranded in orbit.
An example of what might strand a shuttle in space is STS-107, the Columbia mission that ended in catastrophic failure during re-entry due to a compromised thermal protection system. Now, as it happened, had NASA promptly reached the conclusion that the shuttle was, in fact, damaged to a point threatening the lives of the crew, the shuttle Atlantis might've been used to bring home the seven astronauts aboard Columbia. But that was only because there happened to be a subsequent scheduled flight that was already well along in its readying. This wasn't always the case, especially in the earlier years of the shuttle program. For example, Columbia few four missions before the second shuttle built, Challenger, was even delivered to Kennedy Space Center. Once the International Space Station was launched (1998) the shuttle was often in an orbit where it could be utilized to wait for a rescue mission, but not always - the ill-fated Columbia mission would have been unable to reach the ISS had the damage to the orbiter been understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potential_Landlord
It's amazing how well the moon program went. I think the main reason is they kept it simple. Cylindrical rockets, by that time well understood. The Space Shuttle program on the other hand... talk about complex design.
Well, three astronauts did die in a launchpad test. And while no one died on Apollo 13, a whole lot went wrong with that mission.
Also, there's math: 135 shuttle missions were flown, compared to only 11 crewed Apollo missions.
In some ways yes, but think about all the separation and docking in both earth's orbit AND lunar orbit AND having to have a means to descend AND ascend from the moon. It's amazing they got all that down with a few Gemini practice missions. It's still mind boggling the Apollo program was so successful considering the tools engineers had AND considering the HUGE Systems Engineering task coordinating the efforts of all those contractors. Mind boggling. AND it was done in about seven years from Kennedy's challenge speech and 1969. Oh, and throw in the redesign following Apollo 1 fire. (Excellent book on that called Angle Of Attack by Harrison Storms.)
It was a pretty stressful moment; a lonely human stepping out into a lethal wasteland with only a few layers of fabric to keep him safe. I think a lot of people might have mucked that up a little bit. He was a very cool customer, but still just a human.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
