Talk:Neil Armstrong/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Oldest posts

Armstrong speculated after the mission that his voice — operated transmitter may not have picked up the word.

“The ‘a’ was intended,” Armstrong explained to reporters. “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 parenthesis.” [1]

Nonetheless, since he meant to say the "a" I think we should put it in without parentheses. Otherwise his classic line sounds unnecessarily enigmatic. It's almost like saying that Kennedy called himself a jelly doughnut simply because he did a Bushism on Ich bin ein Berliner vs. Ich bin Berliner (the audience knew what he meant). --Uncle Ed

I understand the difficulty in quoting what he actually said versus what he meant to say, but it seems to me that mentioning the quote both ways along with pointing out that he botched it is a little much for an encyclopedia article. (Am I being revisionist and trying to edit/cover up his mistake? I don't think so: I'm just trying to deemphasize it somewhat.) Then again, perhaps the explicit discussion of the issue on the article page is required because of the wiki effects. -- Ke4roh 03:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  1. It is the mistakes that we make that help to point out our humanity. The need to pretend that we are perfect (and actually hide them) is one of our gravest failings.
  2. The rules for language are always in flux, what was wrong in the 1500's is the only way to say it today. Whose to say that in 2552 someone will here those words and comment, "He said that so eloquently. Why did people keep trying to change it?"
In the end Neil said what he said. The way it is presented here allows for the needs of the many. Just thought I would add two cents. MarnetteD | Talk 00:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't he say : "It's one small step for man, but a giant leap for mankind." ? --Garo 11:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The quote is "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Armstrong forgot to say "...for a man...", and the audio recording clearly demonstrates that static was not at fault for the omission -- the pause necessitated by such an explanation simply doesn't exist.
On that note, I would think "for (a) man" should be edited down with a note similar to the above added. Any thoughts / objections / cookies? — Lomn | Talk 20:33:02, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
I concur. The discrepancy with the quote ought to be explained in the entry. Simply deciding to include or excldue the parenthetical "a" does a disservice to both sides of the story. The sentences above would seem to be sufficient. --Anson2995 05:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Neil Armstrong is not a convert to Islam. Please see http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/features99/mus-celeb.htm among many other sites for evidence refuting the claim that Armstrong became a Muslim.

It doesn't mention his death. Didn't he die a while back ago? I believe he died in like 1998 or something? But it says stuff about him in 2005? -- Jason_Q

He is very much alive as of today. JackofOz 06:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Neil Armstrong is alive and well to my knowledge. Sean (talk || contribs) 03:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Family?

Doesn't he have any children? If I remember, during those older space programs it was "a must" to be married or you couldn't be selected to go to space.

According to his NASA biography, Armstrong was married with two children at the time of the Apollo 11 mission. This 2000 article says the same thing, suggesting he didn't have any more. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be added. --Anson2995 05:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
He has two sons, Mark and Rick. He also had a daughter, Karen, who died in 1962 when she was two, from a brain tumor. --165.254.107.2 18:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The requirements of being an Astronaut included logging time as a test pilot, being under a certain height, and passing a brtual psychological exam, but marriage was not an issue. Apollo 13's Jack Swigert is a prime example.

Those famous words

'The simple statement came from a train of thought that he had during the hours after landing. He knew he would have to say something as he took the first step, and "step" seemed like a good place to start. It just grew from there. Theories that he consciously took the statement from J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit ("not a great leap for a man, but a leap in the dark") or a memo from an associate deputy administrator of NASA are denied by Armstrong.'

I'm sure that I read somewhere that NASA had told Neil to say that days before the launch. Could someone cite this?

I have been told by a college friend of Neil Armstrong, that his correct middle name is "Aladdin." Can anybody substantiate either "Alden" or Aladdin? 144.132.194.134 10:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Adam B.

[2] contains a 1958 signature which contains the middle name; it's clearly too short to be "Aladdin" (for a start, it doesn't have enough risers) Shimgray | talk | 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

His wife

The dates in this article regarding his wife Janet don't add up. It says that she died in 1962, and then that they were divorced in 1994. Does anyone have an accurate date for when she actually died? I suspect it is later than 1962 given the comment about her regretting not finishing her education, and the unliklihood of a solo father going to the moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhys.lewis (talk • contribs)

It is weird how many people seem confused by that paragraph. It says nothing about Janet dying. It is talking about Karen, their daughter. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
dood,he has old children around the age of 50.the children are mostly around 30 yrs younger than their parents.

user:dark-hooded smoker

user: eternalshogunx I know I'm going off on a pretty weird topic here, but I heard that Neil Armstrong said "Yabba Dabba Doo!" shortly after landing on the Moon. Is this true because I cannot find proof anywhere on the net of this? Thanks in advance!

I have never heard such a thing. Though you may want to have a search and read through the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal which has full transcripts of everything the astronauts said on the surface. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Just found out that Wally Schirra said "Yabadabadoo" on Apollo 7 after a successful firing of the spacecraft's engine. This may be where you heard it. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


There is a lot of conjecture that Neil armstrong DIDN'T walk on the moon, this should be included on the trivia part of the actual page, if included also is a 'supposed' fact that that people used to believe he had converted to muslim. mnemonic 01:19, 19 october 2005

First of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that there is "a lot" of conjecture on this topic. There is a lengthy and (in my opinion) well written page on the moon landing hoax. If someone feels obliged to mention it and add a link, I'm not sure that I'd object, but I don't think it's really necessary.
--Anson2995 15:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This hoax is a hoax. Rlevse 11:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The thought of the hoax being a hoax is a hoax, once one puts enough time and effort into investigating the matter. In any case, I move to have the article changed to read, "...is thought to be the first..." instead "...was the first..."

Short of anyone going back to the moon or someone pointing a telescope at the landing sites on the moon, you cannot call the hoax theory a hoax because you cannot prove the landing happened or did not happen. Both sides have to rely upon assumptions and while the non-hoax folks think they have the upper hand, besides the astronauts, not one of them can claim that they went to the moon themselves.

Whether he landed on the moon or not I can't say since I wasn't there but it strikes me as very odd that he was not more vocal and in the public eye about his experience afterwards. One has to assume that the US government selected him because he was mentally fit and they had to realize that if they landed on the moon first, it would be great for publicity and you would think they would pick a fellow who would bask in the spotlight and not retire into the shadows. Makes you wonder why he did the turtle act afterwards. While his experience may have been profound, you would think he would want to share his experience. Unless he is riddled with guilt about being involved in one of the greatest lies in history. Makes you wonder.

I recall he was quite vocal after the landing; all three went on a nationwide tour. Armstrong seems soon to have become fed up with the attention - the point has been made that he knew he wouldn't be allowed to go into space again, as with Gargarin he wouldn't be risked. So he was like the most famous rock star but without any possibility of making another record. He didn't do many personal appearances, but he has done some interviews over the years, he's just very selective and who can blame him. Apepper 20:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh be quiet. I presume you'll also be arguing as vigorously about the Earth being flat, as you cannot conclusively prove that unless you go into space either. Of course, even from terra firma you can demonstrate that the Earth is not flat, in the same way that you can demonstrate that man landed on the moon, should it not intefere with your agenda. Ajmayhew 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you ajmayhew. Dappled Sage 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of the Landing

The date usually quoted, 20 July, is an arbitrary one. This event occurred on a world where time has never been defined. At the moment the landing happened, it may have been 20 July at Cape Kennedy, but it was a different date in other places on Earth. Since he talked about one giant leap for "mankind", not just for Americans, I think something needs to be said about the choice of the date. Not sure what, though. JackofOz 03:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Official NASA documentation refers to Neil's epic step as taking place on the 21st of July, 1969 at 2:56 GMT. See: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_11i_Timeline.htm
Also, "world where time has never been defined" is, honestly, rediculous. Time is a property of motion. The Moon has motion, therefore the Moon has time. Beyond that, the Moon's motion is regular and seperated in to distinct periods of light and darkness. Therefore, not only does the Moon have time, but it has a day, a night, and a year; all of which were calculated long before 1969. See: Month. (YingPar 4:35 15 Dec 05 PST)
Thanks. The very fact that the fateful step occurred at 2:56 GMT proves my point. Greenwich Mean Time has relevance to the planet Earth because it is related to the Greenwich meridian, which is a line passing through a place in London. All time zones on Earth are related in some way to their distance East or West of Greenwich. GMT obviously has no relevance to extraterrestrial bodies. If we ever establish a colony on the Moon or Mars, we will presumably decree a base meridian there, and the diurnal motion of that body will be measured with reference to that meridian. It will certainly have nothing whatsoever to do with GMT. I guess the real reason we date the Moon landing using a terrestrial date of 21 July 1969 is that that's the only one we had at the time (and for the forseeable future will still have), and it makes intuitive sense to us. However, what the date and time are really saying is that, when Armstrong walked on the Moon, it wasn't 2:56GMT 21 July 1969 on the Moon, but 2:56 GMT 21 July 1969 back on Earth. The GMT bit is all I really needed to know. Cheers.
During the missions, GET, or ground elapsed time was used. That's why NASA transcripts use 109:24:19 GET as the time of Armstrong's first step. Yes, this translates into 21 July GMT, but since Mission Control was in Houston (Central time), it happened on the 20th.
So Mission Control was in Houston. So what? This event did not occur in Houston, or anywhere else in the USA, or anywhere else on Earth. It happened on an extraterrestrial body commonly known as "the Moon". Whatever date and time we ascribe to the moment Armstrong steeped onto the moon's surface is absolutely arbitrary, because our calendar, and our time and date systems all apply to the Earth and only to the Earth. Apparently we nowadays refer to the Moon event using UTC because that is the international standard used on Earth. And I would support that convention. That makes it 21 July, not 20 July. But it is still arbitrary. JackofOz 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, John Lennon was shot and killed at about 11:00 PM in New York City on 12/8/80. Does that mean, because New York is GMT-5, that he was really killed on 12/9/80 and that's the day that they carved in his tombstone? No. --Jkonrath 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Events on Earth are dated according to the time zone applying in the place where the event happened. Lennon died on 8 Dec, because that was the date in New York at the moment of his death. That it was 9 Dec in other places on Earth at that same moment in time is irrelevant. JackofOz 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on, that's just silly. What would you have the article say? "Since Earth time doesn't apply on the Moon, we actually don't know when the landing took place. Too bad." Any chosen time will be arbitrary, and there's nothing we can do about that. IMO, following your argument of the mission being "for all mankind" (although in reality it obviously wasn't), the "most correct" thing would be to use Earth standard time, i.e. GMT (or UTC, if you will).Michael riber jorgensen 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
This is somewhat of a neologism so I won't put it in the article, but one could argue that human time on the moon started with Armstrong's first step. (Equally valid points in time are the crash-landing of Luna 2 or the moment of Eagle's touchdown, but I digress.) Anyway, that would put Armstrong's first step at 00:00:00 on Lunar Day 0. (Or would it be Lunar Day 1?) — Michael J 01:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

one giant leap for mankind

I'dont hear the "one giant leap for mankind" in the audio.

Credit?

I'm currently reading First Man, his biography. Much of this article sounds like an extensive rip-off (paraphrasing would be generous) of the book. What is Wikipedia policy on this? Telliott 17:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

copyright violations are unacceptable and should be reported. sources of the article should be stated, both for credit and encyclopedic standards. paraphrasing is fine, as facts and organization are not copyrightable. particular verbal expression is protected. which particular parts do you suspect might be rip-offs? Derex 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The basis for thew rewrite was First Man. If I have used specific phrasings I apologise and would like to know where so that they can be changed. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the term rip-off. What seems to have been done is to mine a thousand factual details from the book and use them to build the article. Hansen spent spent a lot of his time gathering these gems through interviews, sorting and sifting them before writing. You could presumably go to the same sources and re-record their answers to the questions, but it's not like you can find many of these details in the newspaper or something. And Neil Armstrong wouldn't talk to you. I don't think it's fair use but I guess it's debatable. Telliott 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
well, it is unquestionably legal. it's not even fair use, because this use of a collection of facts doesn't even fall under copyright law at all. whether you think it's fair in an ethical sense is a different issue. look at it this way, this article definitely ought to include citations to source materials, giving "First Man" a little free PR. further, it absolutely should list "First Man" under further reading if that is a useful enough book to be such a prominent source. all in all, use (with credit) here should really be a big benefit to the author by pointing interested readers to the book. but whether or not you, or the author, agree with that point; it's flat out legal. thanks for raising the issue, though. it's always best to be sure we're compliant. Derex 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Hey Evil M, if you wrote any sections primarily based on that book, would you mind listing the relevant chapter as a reference. I'm not sure the appropriate format for a lengthy reference, but maybe something at the section bottom like:

Source: First Man, Chapter 3.

Thanks. Best to get it down while it's fresh. 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started to go through and add footnotes for the article, which are probably basically all going to be Ibid to specific pages of First Man. This could take me a while just because my access to the internet is rather limited (I won't have it at home again until Tuesday at the earliest). Also will write the bit the covers the world tours he did just after Apollo 11. Want to mention when he was in the USSR and he watched the Soyuz 9 launch, after being with the Tereshkova all day, who was the wife of one of the cosmonauts on board and who hadn't mentioned a thing about there even going to be a launch. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but some of the stuff in this article is pure plaigarism. I liked First Man too, but come on, this is embarassing.

According to the Wikipedia article on plagarism, it "...is a form of academic malpractice specifically referring to the use of another's information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source." I fail to see how this article meets this description. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Detail

I agree this article now seems too heavily drawn from First Man. Lots of details are too obscure for an encyclopedia article and some are plan irrelevant out of the book's context (i.e. the Banshee crash was a big episode in the book, but Armstrong wasn't flying that day and wasn't injured, so the mention in the wiki article is just superfluous and should be removed). Other stuff like the details about the 1202 alarms should be moved to the Apollo 11 article. 71.141.251.153 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

many hands make quick work :) your comments are welcome, and so are any edits you think would improve this article, or Apollo 11. I do agree that much of the detail in the Gemini & Apollo 11 sections should be moved to those articles respectively. Derex 03:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't submit to Wikipedia if I didn't want people to rewrite, remove and otherwise edit "my" work :-) . I did find it difficult when writing the material to remember that this article is a bio of Armstrong and not about the missions. I only tried to include material that was relavent to Armstrong - ie his piloting on Gemini 8, his thoughts on the program alarms etc. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through and culled some unneeded detail from the Gemini 8 and Apollo 11 section. Feel free to do some more mercilessly editing :-) . Evil Monkey - Hello 02:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not the first person on the moon

Technicaly there was I believe a woman who made the first steps on the moon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.41.211 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure I follow? Evil Monkey - Hello 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure I wouldn't. DirkvdM 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
But why is the short form of "lunatic" spelled "looney"? ➥the Epopt 22:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No it was neil Armstrong, women haven't went to space until a few years ago! (Unless you count the Soviet program but they never took a Women to the moon).


Elven6 July UTC

pic of neil with american flag

could you add a picture of neil holding the flag in the moon i need it for a project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.41.211 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, there is no picture of Neil Armstrong on the Moon with the flag. In fact there are only five images in total during their moonwalk, which can all be seen here. If you just want a generic image of an astronaut and the flag, how about:
Buzz Aldrin on Apollo 11
Pete Conrad on Apollo 12
Al Shepard on Apollo 14
Dave Scott on Apollo 15
John Young on Apollo 16
Harrison Schmitt on Apollo 17
Gene Cernan on Apollo 17
Evil Monkey - Hello 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hard to believe this is true. The first man to walk on the moon and there is not one good picture of him on the moon?

Only Neil had a camera on the EVA. Note that all of the Apollo 11 EVA photos are of Buzz, with Neil perhaps reflecting in the visor. 35.11.183.95 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There was one camera, and it was usually held by Armstrong, but it was occasionally handed over - there are a small number of photographs which have been identified as of Armstrong by Aldrin. Almost all are of Aldrin, yes, but not all... Shimgray | talk | 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Business commitments & various 'he's a nutter' allegations

Two disparate issues:

The article refers to his wife leaving him due to his over-busy work commitments, but the article doesn't make clear what they were. What exactly was he doing to make himself so busy things were bokeda year in advance?

and

Various urban legends refer to Armstrong becoming a recluse due to the mental strain of being on the moon (more wacky versions are that he encountered alien artefacts and withdrawing from society made it easier to cope). Should these be referenced in the article - and, in a link to the above, just what is he doing seeing as he never appears in the public eye?

Last August I wrote a whole section on his life in private business, but it appears to have been removed at some point. In the zeal to make this article read like an excerpt of "First Man," an awful lot of good info got lost. After leaving the University of Cincinnati, Armstrong served as chairman of AIL Technologies, an electronics and avionics manufacturer. He was there until his retiremnt in 2002. He has kept a low profile, but he is far from a recluse. There used to be links here to interviews he has given and to articles about his public appearances, plus things like the opening of the Armstrong Museum in Ohio. Again, not sure how the article benfited by removing those. The wholesale addition of content from "First Man" and wholesale deletion of other content has made this article suffer. Anson2995 17:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The paragraph that I think you are referring to, or something similar, disappeared amid some vandalism around Dec 16th. Leon7 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and restored the "Business activities" subsection discussed above, but trimmed some of it away to shorten it a bit. I thought we need something more about what he's been doing for the last 35 years. Leon7 01:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong Limit

Does anyone happen to know if the Armstrong Limit is named after Neil? I can't find anything on the source of the name for the article and, while its probably unlikely, i thought i would ask here. Thanks. Rockpocket (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)