“…I can see 100 years from now Buzz is still punching people out”…
who get in his face and tell him that he is a liar, and that he and his buds did not walk on the Moon, after they put their butts on what could have been the world’s biggest firecracker…

Hopefully, I’ll have this new set of boxing gloves I’m working on finished by then, and you’ll be tying them on him…

“One of the interesting things about Lindbergh is his keeping another family in Germany for many years … while at the same time on the big screen Jimmy Stewart portrayed his flight as a religious conversion. It is hagiography, as googaw continuously points out. I suppose for Dr. Armstrong the only item of note in this regard is that he met his second wife two years before his first wife divorced him. However, I do not play a psychologist on TV, nor am I one in real life, and frankly it does not matter to me, though it will to 50% of the population.”

You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself.

For the record, Neil Armstrong was separated from his first wife, Jan, in mid-1989. It was her choice, not his. In fact, he was deeply depressed about the separation and asked Jan to change her mind. But she filed for divorce. Three years after their separation (1992), Neil met Carol Knight, a widow whose husband had been killed in a 1989 plane crash. Neil was 62 at the time. Carol was 47. The meeting was arranged by mutual friends. Neil and Carol were married two years later (1994), after Neil and Jan’s divorce was final.

Your reference to Charles Lindbergh in this regard was totally inappropriate and thoroughly contemptible.

Neil Armstrong was a decent and honorable man … a genuine Eagle Scout.

Which is more than I can say for you and your despicable remarks.

The man hasn’t even been buried, and you are attempting to defame him.

It pains me to respond to such trash. But I felt it was necessary to defend Mr. Armstrong’s reputation against such a scurrilous and ill-timed comment.

Hopefully, you will offer an apology to the readers of this thread, as well as to the family, colleagues and friends of Neil Armstrong.

Amstrong was a Naval aviator and he, along with Cernan, tended to devote a lot time – mostly out of the spotlight- to navial aviation causes. He was part of a panel discussion at Pensicola several years ago along with other astronatuts who were Navy who could attend. Most of the ‘self-centered ‘stars’ in the American press seem irked that Armstrong wasn’t seduced by the alure of their limelight and did a sitdown, one-on-one. He was pretty wise on that front. Haven’t check on it for years, but there’s probably a great deal of printed and daudio devriefing matrerials in the NASA or Nat’l Archives from 11– or it’s in the bowels of the NASM or at Perdue. He managed the burdens associated w/being ‘First Man’ admirably. No doubt he’s exchanging views with Lindy and the Wrights right now.

@William Mellberg wrote @ August 27th, 2012 at 11:11 am

RE AM- Yes, and it’s interesting how few fragments of that have made their way into the U.S. media covreage over the past 72 hours. Which only goes to show the tale about his reclusiveness are more media myth than fact. As with most men in the autumn of their time, he may also have simply begun to open up a bit more about the experiences of his life– certainly his friend and fellow aviator, Gene Cernan, urged him to do so as the HSF program begn stalling. Aviators tend to frown over stalls. ;-). .

@NeilShipley wrote @ August 26th, 2012 at 9:39 pm

Guess it gets down to the fact that none of those doers where actually leaders. Is that really what’s missing from the HSF effort today? And is that why so many seem to be hanging their hats on one Elon Musk? Just a thought.”

More fantasy from the dapper dressers in Magnified Importance of Diministed Vision crowd. Nobody wears hats anymore.

@Robert G. Oler wrote @ August 27th, 2012 at 12:16 pm

“DCSA brought up an interesting point that I vaguely remembered from previous study of the AuH2O speech and campaign…so thanks to the “internets” I went back and he was correct…AuH2O had along with others of the GOP pretty much balked at the cost of the Apollo effort.”

Indeed. And Goldwater’s speech was in the summer of ’64. GOP opposition was there from the Apollo get-go. And it’s all in the Congressional Record as well.

“By the time of the end of the program no one was supporting the cost (outside of NASA) because the results had never quite lived up to that..”

Except it did- the national goal was achieved- ahead of schedule and at/under budget. Apollo was finite as well– all the participants knew. Cancelling the last three flights by denying operations funding, after the hardware was purchased, and directing HSF to a policy of LEO ops was a political, not an engineering decision, and the nation has been stuck going in circles, no place fast, ever since.

“Musk is a visionary.”

LOL Except he’s not. You need glasses. Unless you ascribe to the Magnified Importance of Diminished Vision. But rest easy, eye care is covered by Obamacare.

@Robert G. Oler wrote @ August 27th, 2012 at 3:21 pm

My God. Armstrong would recoil at the idea of a ‘state fuineral’ for himself.

He’d likely be ‘most appreciative,’ –to borrow his words from THE 7/20/1989 20th anniversary celebrations in Washington– if the nation rekindled a more visible public discourse on BEO HSF. And h’e likely feel honored when the USPS issues a first class postage stamp- as it did for Lindbergh- bearing his likeness. Given Von Braun’s dark history, he’ll never get one. Neil will.

This will probably clear it all up for both of you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology

Apparently commenting on the strangeness of these concepts has now been declared to be religious intolerance. Just as wanting to look at tax returns has become taboo because it would reveal “embarrassing donations”.

In any case, If Romney/Ryan wins the electoral college, I think we can expect NASA to be “returned to greatness”, in other words ATK gets more money, and the NGST, with its ET planet detection capabilities, will face no threat of cancellation.

Okay, a *poor* attempt at poetic, I’ll definitely give you both that…

A serious question, Chris. When Americans return to the Moon without SLS, will you be as happy as you would be if it was done with SLS? Somehow I doubt it, because I get the impression that SLS is more important to you than actually going back to the Moon.

“Look at our modern day Antarctic research base personnel: are they just engaged in the activity of planting flagpoles & stealing decades-old relics from olden-days Antarctic expeditions?? Is THAT all that they are doing in Antarctica nowadays?!”

What would be the goal of going to the Moon?

The goal of the ISS is to learn how to live and work in space, which would include living and working on the Moon. However since Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) is 1,000 times closer than the surface of the Moon, it’s a whole lot less expensive to do that science in LEO than on the surface of the Moon.

If you look at what the scientists that are involved with solving the problems associated with humans living and working in space are focused on, none of them are clamoring to go to the Moon. Certainly it will be a future destination, but it’s not on the critical path for any of the near-term issues we need to solve if we’re going to leave LEO and stay out there.

For instance, just recently scientists have discovered techniques that could prevent bone loss during long-duration space trips, and those same techniques could be used for people staying on the Moon. We learned that in LEO, at a far smaller cost than if we were doing the same science on the Moon.

So Chris, you have to more of a reason than “it would be neat” if you want Congress to pony up $100-200B. You have to have ironclad, compelling reasons why going to the Moon will not only solve some recognized problem (science, national interests, etc.), but that the Moon is the best place to solve that recognized problem. And keep in mind that there are always tradeoffs, so “best place” has to be a combination of relevance and money.

The compelling problem that Apollo (and Armstrong) solved was political – how to show that we were better than the Soviet Union at a time when our two nations were competing against each other around the globe. Even our presence in the Antarctic is partly based on political need, not pure science.

So what are the reasons for going to the Moon today, and why can they only be done on the Moon? And what are the pro’s & con’s for the alternatives?

I guess then I can feel free to call him Saint Neil, or Count Neil Armstrong Esq., or even Admiral Neil Armstrong. No, it’s not up to us to entitle people. For a PhD, it’s up to the awarding institution to do that. Having individuals making up titles in no way honors him. Just want to point out (again) that especially in science and technology, and for most everyone else, honorary doctorates are not considered real PhDs, at least by reputable institutions. Neil Armstrong would have liked to be addressed with a real title. I’m confident of that.

As to Neil Armstrong not actively promoting human spaceflight, yes he did not do so with words, but did so by being a compelling icon. His role in life, which he thankfully adopted, was to represent an astonishing accomplishment, and not to set policy. There are other Moon-walking astronauts who have been more vocal and who, I believe, have therein sacrificed some of their iconic status. Armstrong knew that where he had been didn’t convey space policy expertise, but instead symbolized great things.