Space & Astronomy

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Space & Astronomy / Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso / mac / TEXT_ZIP / spacedig / V10_0 / V10_012.ZIP / V10_012

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 54KB

Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu> X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8YzpJWO00UkVQLt04F>; Sat, 2 Sep 89 00:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <MYzpJHy00UkVILrE5i@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 2 Sep 89 00:21:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #12 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: APOLLO 11 ASTRONAUTS PRESS CONFERENCE (Repost) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Aug 89 16:48:02 GMT From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu (Eric William Tilenius) Subject: APOLLO 11 ASTRONAUTS PRESS CONFERENCE (Repost) I'm not the original poster, but I have gotten many requests for this, so here goes... NASA PRESS CONFERENCE APOLLO XI 20TH ANNIVERSARY PARTICIPANTS: NEIL ARMSTRONG EDWIN "BUZZ" ALDRIN MICHAEL COLLINS MODERATOR: DAVID GARRETT, NASA NEWS CHIEF NASA HEADQUARTERS WASHINGTON, D.C. FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1989 MR. GARRETT: We will start with a brief statement from each of the Apollo XI astronauts -- Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin, and then move right into Q&A. Neil? MR. ARMSTRONG: This crew has had this kind of session every five years for some peculiar reason. Ten years ago, I did make a statement endorsing the concept of permanent presence in space, and I guess that I still feel that's a worthy objective. I hope that Space Station Freedom becomes a reality before we have another 10 years go by. MR. GARRETT: Mike? MR. COLLINS: You know, the only thing that makes me any different from any of you is that I've seen the Earth from a far distance and seen the Moon up close. I think the impressions I get are first of the Earth, is that it's a very small and a very fragile planet and should be treated as such, a very small object. And the Moon, as I think back on it, I don't really think of it so much as a place as a direction. I think the Moon, to me, represents "out there." And at this stage in the development of NASA, of the space program, I think "out there" really points to Mars. So that when I think of the Moon today, I really don't think of it as a destination but as a stepping stone to more interesting places like Mars and perhaps Titan, one of Saturn's moons. MR. GARRETT: Buzz? MR. ALDRIN: I have some of these, but I'm not going to make use of it. Apollo, to me, was a response to a challenge. It has been termed by many as one of the most audacious endeavors in human history, to move outwards. About a year ago, I elected to make an effort at putting down some of my reflections as to what I thought the significance was of the putting together of that event and the achieving of it, and it's available in the form of MEN FROM EARTH right now. I had hoped that, along with that, the situation might be appropriate for this 20th anniversary approaching to become a catalyst to chart a new course, perhaps because I got caught up in the enthusiasm of the '60s and of achievement that we were all a part of. Perhaps wishful thinking, I felt that this situation would be a very right one for the leadership of our nation to chart a new course, a bold course, for human expansion outward becoming a bit more specific. I see that -- I'm doing some work with the exploration office -- we're beginning to refine some of the choices, and certainly by the time that the anniversary of Columbus, 1992, comes around, I feel certain that we will have a course charted for human expansion outward. I think at this particular opportunity, it's the 20th anniversary, it would be very helpful if we could get some refining of just what the time span might be by our leadership, so that in the interim we could begin to more clearly focus some of the short-term objectives that we have toward the fulfillment of human expansion outward. MR. GARRETT: Okay, we're ready for Q&A. Let's start here with John Holliman. Please John -- please everyone give your name and affiliation before you start. Q John Holliman, Cable News Network. A question for all three of you, if I can. What is the best thing and the worst thing that has happened to the United States space program in the 20 years since three of you went to the Moon? Maybe Mr. Armstrong first. MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, it's not something I focus on. I don't focus on bests and worsts and firsts and superlatives. There's been a lot of good things happen and history will judge their importance. I'm not capable of doing that. MR. COLLINS: Well, I think clearly the worst thing in my mind was the explosion of the Challenger. The best thing, probably, the grand tour of the planets which is about to culminate this August in the flight by Uranus. MR. ALDRIN: Well, I certainly feel the best achievement, the best part was the achievement of Apollo and the continuing to expand on that while we had the wherewithal. And the worst was the gradual demise of that. MR. COLLINS: Let me interject -- I understood your question to be since the end of Apollo onward -- MR. ALDRIN: I understood it that way too. (Laughter.) MR. GARRETT: Okay. Answers don't always -- (laughs). Okay. Yes? Q Bill Heinz (sp) with the Chicago Sun Times. MR. GARRETT: Bill, please wait for the mike. We have other people that are -- Q All right. Bill Heinz of the Chicago Sun Times. How are you? For Neil Armstrong. In Houston on the 5th of July, I believe it was, of 1969, I asked you if you had thought of any memorable words to say as you landed on the Moon. You said you had not. Then, on the 20th when you did land, you gave us some very memorable words indeed. And I'm wondering when it came to you exactly what would be the appropriate thing to say? MR. ARMSTRONG: You're talking, I'm sure, about "Hello, Houston. Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed"? (Laughter.) Well, that was -- Q No, no, -- no -- MR. ARMSTRONG: -- I thought that was kind of self-evident at the time -- (laughter). Q No, that's not the one. I'm sorry, Neil. What I was speaking of was "a small step for a man; giant leap for mankind." MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, it was -- it was a statement that was natural in the sense of the time. It was a step and a step, and I thought about it really after we got there. Q Okay, yeah. MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. MR. GARRETT: Kathy Sawyer. Q Kathy Sawyer (sp) from the Washington Post. I'd like to hear from each one of you what, if you were on President Bush's advisory staff, what would you recommend he do next? What course would you chart to promote the human expansion into space? Would you go to the Moon first, and then Mars? The other way around, or some different scenario? MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, the advisory council, which has recently been re-established under the current administration, I suppose has that charge, and I don't know how they're attacking it. I would recommend that they not really spend a lot of time reviewing current programs, but they take a longer look so that they can put the policies in place that will establish the programs of the '90s and the next century. MR. COLLINS: I'm very pro-Mars. I think that this country should establish now a long-range goal with no firm timetable, but a long-range goal of exploring and setting up a colony on Mars, and invite participation by other nations, and that we -- that is the one goal that to me, I think, would have a unifying and perhaps even an electrifying effect upon NASA, this country, our space program and the space business around the globe. I'd certainly like to see a gradual evolutionary program expanding outward that includes whatever is necessary moving toward permanent presence in the solar system. And I contrast that with going to the Moon several times and then essentially pulling back from that for a long period of time. Who knows exactly when we'll get back to the Moon? I just don't think that that sort of thing ought to be done to Mars, that we go there on several expeditionary adventures and then not follow up on it. I'd like to see an evolutionary program, and I would see that more than likely involving both lunar exploitation and a movement outward toward Mars and the commonality of the equipment that's needed to carry those out. MR. GARRETT: John Bisney (sp)? Q John Bisney with United Stations Radio -- I guess, for Neil or Buzz. A book that came out a couple of years ago about the building of the LM described a scene of some concern in the MOCR (ph) a few minutes after you landed -- some gauges showing apparently a frozen slug of fuel in one of the descent-stage fuel lines close to a valve. And they were quite concern about it to the point that the Grumman engineering manager, John Corson, was recommending you ought to just lift off right away. I assume that you two have become aware of this in the intervening years. Do you talk about that when you found out -- how much danger do you think you were really in? Should you have lifted off right away? MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I do recall the incident but I don't recall my reaction at the time. It was something that was being monitored and I do not recall any enthusiasm on our part for rapid liftoff. (Laughter.) MR. ALDRIN: I don't really recall being made aware of that particular situation. And it wouldn't have been in real time. It would have been after the fact, and there wasn't much we could do about it since we weren't the repositories of the most up-to-date information. The people in Mission Control certainly were. Q I'm Paul Hofersten (sp) here, with USA Today. And a question for Neil or for Buzz. Gentelmen, scientists tell us that the footprints that you left on the Moon could be there for hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of years from now. Could you give us some of your thoughts on that sense of permanence that you've established up there? Do you ever think about that at all? MR. ARMSTRONG: No, I haven't. I kind of hope that somebody goes up there one of these days and cleans them up. (Laughter.) Q (Inaudible) -- with Netherlands Television. I have a question first of all for Mr. Aldrin. In the last minutes before landing on the Moon, you had communication with Steve Bales in mission control about alarm signals on your computer screen, 1201, 1202, 1204. Could you describe exactly what happened and what your reaction was? And a question for Mr. Armstrong: Did you realize, Mr. Armstrong, that after you shut off your engines after landing on the Moon you had only between 7 and 17 seconds of fuel left? MR. ARMSTRONG: First, we were communicating with Charlie Duke, some of you will remember that, but he was communicating with Steve Bales. And with regard -- I can let Buzz talk about the -- his understanding of the alarms, because he was spending a lot of his attention on that at the time, while I was -- I had a certain interest in the fuel gauge. The fuel gauge is not very accurate. The gauge itself and the gauging system was not accurate. We had a low level sensor port, which told us that the fluid level got down to a certain part, and that was kind of a finite point in time -- of fuel left. That didn't really particularly worry me at that point in time. We were used to flying the lunar landing training vehicle with very low amounts of fuel, very few number of seconds left before touchdown. And at that point, we were at a low enough altitude that probably if we'd had fuel exhaustion, the landing gear was capable of the fall that we would have had into the -- and we would have kept attitude (?) control, so it wasn't a thing that really concerned me. MR. ALDRIN: If you remember, we -- in the early part of power descent, we're face down. And I might add that we also -- because we were engaged in this first rather audacious maneuver, power descent, for the first time, we felt that, you know, things could possibly not happen exactly the way things might want them to, so we wanted everything in our favor. And one of those was to be sure that our way home was assured, and that meant being able to catch Mike wherever he might be. And the radar was a little bit more accurate than our eyeballs were. So we felt it only natural to leave the rendezvous radar on, and it was reflected in the checklist. As we were face down, the landing radar was not receiving any information. When we (got ?) around, shortly thereafter, at 30,000, 25,000 feet, I'm not sure exactly when, the computer popped out some of these program alarms, which light a caution warning, blank the diskey display, and give a code as to what it is. And I think it caught both of us unawared. It diverted our attention from whatever else we were doing, and primarily at that point, I was doing a sequential scan of in the cockpit and relaying to Neil what the computer was displaying so that he was able to begin to look and adjust to the scene he was seeing out the window right away. So, when things like that happen out of the ordinary, we will get diverted -- our attention. But fortunately, some of the simulation prior to flight had indicated that perhaps some of the mission controllers needed a bit more information as to what some of those computer overloads, or whatever the alarms might be, and they had done some homework on that. I was not aware that that had happened or that something similar to that had happened in a simulation. I think the backup LM pilot was flying with Neil at the time. Essentially, it was a diversion of attention, and it involved things that were happening that were beyond our ability to fully comprehend. But fortunately, because all that information was being sent back down to the ground, they knew the status of things and could make a value judgment, and we certainly had every reason to have high confidence in them. So it continued to be a bit of a nuisance from that point on, even though it changed from one alarm to the other. I think, had the first program alarm occured at 500 feet, where Neil took over manually, it might have caused considerably more concern and diversion of attention. I might also indicate that we were at a significant disadvantage in comparison to succeeding flights in terms of the autopilot that was available to us. It was significantly improved later on in the ability to give this control of the spacecraft back to the computer so that it could null out the motion over the surface to zero, or as best it could, and then it could -- we could control the rate of descent on down. But once Neil took over, it was up to him, through changing attitude control, to null out those translation rates. And that's a significant increase in the talent level needed, and he was certainly up to it. MR. GARRETT: Okay, Harry? Q Harry Rosenthal, the Associated Press. The three of you became heroes at a time when the United States was very short of heroes and was looking for some. And yet, you, Mr. Armstrong, more than the other two, but all three of you sort of disappeared off the face of the Earth and you didn't reappear until you were on the Challenger Commission. why did you retreat so much when NASA probably could have used your celebrity to keep the space program going? MR. ARMSTRONG: Gosh, I didn't know that I did that. (Light laughter.) I was here in Washington for a time running the aeronautics program of NASA. And then I went back to the university, and they -- the folks at the university would be very surprised that they're considered to be "off the face of the Earth." But I thought that was -- that was a worthwhile thing for me to be doing, and I'm glad I did. Q (Off mike) -- you stayed out of the public eye when you could have been -- the other two worte books. You didn't write -- you haven't written a book of memoirs; publicity appearances that could have helped, you weren't part of. That's the kind of thing I mean. MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I was pleased doing the things I was doing. I guess that's the sum and substance of it. MR. GARRETT: This gentleman here. Q Alan Silverman (sp?) from Voice of America for Mr. Armstrong. Twenty years ago, the whole world was with you when you took that one small step. Today, many people seem to get a rap of being blase about the space program -- maybe I should say many of our editors have become blase about the space program. What would you say would be needed or what should be done to get people more excited about human endeavors in space? MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, it's human nature to adapt very quickly to new situations. We sort of are amazed by, enthralled by, then bored by, and eventually forget some new things usually within one revolution of the Earth around the Sun. That's the way humans are. And so it's of great surprise to me that so many people remember something that happened 20 years ago. (Laughs.) Doesn't surprise me. Q But would you say there's anything that could or should be done? Any leadership or any direction you could go in that would at least spark that interest? MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I'm sure the editors will all be interested in anything new. In your business news is what's happening today. Q Patrick O'Neal (sp?) from Network 10 Australia. If you had a hit list, Mr. Aldrin, people responsible for playing down, and making the space program unpopular, who would be on that hit list? (Laughter.) (Pause.) MR. ALDRIN: I certainly haven't approached the subject by trying to look for leaders who've been against us. I've more been looking for those that I can rally around behind or to follow me and my thoughts. I don't know. I think that's a little unfair to ask us to point a finger at leaders and others. Q Do you think leadership is, in fact, lacking from a political level? MR. ALDRIN: Well, I think certainly what set us on our course for Apollo to go to the Moon has been characterized by most everybody as strong leadership and clarity of purpose, in response to a rather unique international and national situation. And I think all of us who'd like to see continued activities in human exploration are scratching our heads and trying to wonder how can we recreate something of that nature, so that we can maintain, or regain, or attain what I think we'd all like to see, and that's leadership in the community of nations in the world in that this nation is able to do. We all feel that we're up to that, and it certainly takes more than just a little bit of interest here and there. It takes the interest of the people as evidenced to the Congress that it wants to stay doing what they're doing. And, of course, they have the purse strings, but they're not going to chart a course without leadership of the Executive Branch. MR. GARRETT: This gentleman here in the white coat -- Q Les Dore (ph), Final Frontier Magazine. Today a lot of people, or a number of people anyway, hold up the Apollo program as a negative in the sense that, in thinking about going to Mars, we're urged to avoid an Apollo-typed spectacular. And I'm wondering if any of you, with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight, think that we should have done anything differently from the way we did it, and if so, what effect do you think it would have on the American space program today? MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I've heard those sorts of comments by others before. And there may be merit and truth to those views. Nevertheless, I am personally delighted as an individual and am delighted for my colleagues and our country that, even if it was a bad idea, we did it. (Laughter.) MR. GARRETT: (Off mike.) Q Frank Miles, Independent Television News, London. Since one of the main purposes of the Apollo program as a whole was to gather Moon rock, and during the course of the six landings, 850 pounds, some seven and a half hundredweights, was gathered. And I gather that in excess of 90 percent of that still lies untouched in a vault in Texas. Would you like to comment, Mr. Armstrong or Dr. Aldrin? MR. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, I think that was superb idea. It may be that we don't have the opportunity to return to the Moon in the next decade or two for whatever reasons. During that time period, new analytical techniques and experimental devices will be invented which will allow far more understanding of those samples than we have available to us with our current equipment and techniques. So the fact that we're saving large amounts of that rock for future use, I think, is perceptive and wise. Now, when we hear that people aren't getting enough samples to do what they want to do, why, then one has to balance those two sides. But it's good. MR. ALDRIN: Frank, with all due respect, I really don't think we'd have rallied behind the program if the objective of Apollo was to bring back Moon rocks. I think there may have been other ways to do that. It was a repsonse to a challenge, and in a sense, it was sort of byproduct. And I think the purpose was to demonstrate a capability and hopefully sustain that, and then along with that, accomplish as much information gathering and increase in knowledge and scientific return as possible. I think if any of those rocks that have not been looked at yet would contain clues as to whether there might be ice or water at the poles, we'd just jump at the chance to look at them and find out. I think they have a resonably good idea of what the content is of what they haven't looked at yet. Q (Off mike.) MR. GARRETT: Wait -- wait for the mike. We have people all over the country and the world listening to this. They can't hear the questions if you don't wait for the mike, please. Q I'm Eda Molinari (sp), Familia Cristiani, Italy. How did your great experience change your inner life, to you, the three of you? MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, before 1969, the press conferences were much smaller -- (laughter). MR. GARRETT: Okay, let's -- Q Dick Juliano (sp) from AP Radio. For Mike Collins and Buzz Aldrin: It's estimated that it costs as much as $300 million to launch a Space Shuttle, and it could cost $30 billion to build the Space Station. That money could build a lot of houses here in the United States and feed a lot of hungry children. What would you say to Americans to justify the resources that go into space, as opposed to being spent here at home? MR. ALDRIN: Well, I'd look at the numbers. We're putting less than 1 percent of out budget into the space program. I certainly think it's well worth that and more. We could carry out, I think, a very credible, expansive program for less than 2 percent of our budget. I don't really believe it's up to us to make value judgments as to exactly how that ought to be spent. I think we're expected to be firm advocates for the business that we were in for a good bit of our life, and I think we certainly are. We advocate expansion of space activities as much as possible. MR. COLLINS: You know, I would just say that it's the responsibility of a government to take care of present needs and to anticipate future directions. And it seems to me that less than a penny on the federal dollar is not an excessive amount to look toward our future. We're a nation of explorers. If we had pursued the logic that says you have to take money from the space program and put it into restoring the cities, we would never have ventured beyond Jamestown or Plymouth, because certainly they were squalid little settlements with problems that dwarf the problems of cities today, and we never would have gotten west beyond the Appalachian Mountains had we decided to render those little colonies perfect before we continued our exploration. And I think that the same thing is true today. Q Tom Crystal (sp?) with Frontier Net. Certainly, the Moon landing, the first Moon landing was a major event of the 1960s. I'd like to get your thoughts on the effects of that event in terms of how it affected -- how we look at the world and just really the changes that it made in society. You know, the Apollo 11 landing was, in effect, a catalyst to a lot of other things, and I'd like to sort of get your perspective on this whole thing that you did out of this one event. For anyone. MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm not sure I understand -- MR. ALDRIN: I think it would be a great understatement to say that it was the most significant event that happened in my life. Professionally, I felt that I was developing myself in an understanding of how one carries out activities through the orbital relationships. So I look back on my participation in Apollo, not only as a crewman, but also as one who had the opportunity to make some contributions in the techniques of how we carried that out. Certainly, it changed my image of myself because of the image that was changed throughout the world of me, and then the ability to -- perhaps trying to live up to that to your standards and to my standards was a most significant challenge. I think that right now I'm very satisfied with my ability to project my talents to be very useful to the space program in terms of how we might carry out expeditions and evolutionary missions to Mars. I'm very satisfied with what I'm putting together in that area, and that's one of the creative, innovative analyses from the orbital standpoint as to how to do that in a really innovative way of getting to Mars. Q Yes. I'm Linda Scott (sp) from CONUS Communications. Aside from the changes in your personal lives, what do you believe was your most important contribution to the manned space program? MR. ARMSTRONG: I don't have any answer. I can't think of anything. (Laughter.) MR. COLLINS: I'll think of one for him. He did his job very well. (Laughter.) Q Tina Garner (sp), KTRK-TV, Houston. Any of you -- Mr. Armstrong or Mr. Aldrin -- remember from your training, particularly the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle, what rememberances do you have of that training session -- or those training sessions? MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I recall that very well, not just because I was involved in it at Houston, but because I had been involved with it far earlier. Even before there was a Lunar Module, we were looking at something that eventually became the LLRV, which later became -- in subsequent development, became the LLTV. So, I had been with it for a decade almost. And it was a wonderful device that was risky, and in fact, we lost a few of them along the way, difficult to manage, but yet was an essential ingredient in our preparing to do the final descent to touchdown in the Lunar Module. And if we were going to have problems, I think it's very fortunate that we had them here in the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle where you had an ejection seat that could get you out of trouble rather than have them close by the surface of the Moon. Q Dan Billow (ph) with WESH-TV in Orlando. Would any of you recreate the few moments that -- during which you were entering the Apollo spacecraft on the morning of launch, and what do you remember of that, and do you remember the man who, I believe, was helping you into the spacecraft? I believe his name was Guenter Wendt. MR. GARRETT: Neil? MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, we had fortunately a glorious morning on that July Sunday morning. Guenter Wendt, often known as the "Pad Fuehrer," held his position with patience and perseverance. He had done so for many years, and I think only recently retired from that job after holding the position for some decades. He was always reliable. And he was always a great source of amusement. MR. ALDRIN: By circumstance I was treated to a particularly memorable, pleasurable moment while the pad leaders and other people inserting, or installing, Mike and Neil into the spacecraft. I had what seemed like about 20 minutes waiting by myself, up at some level two-thirds of the way up or whatever it was, that I had to just walk around briefly and with my little air-conditioning unit pumping life support breathing into me rather coolly. I could watch the Sun rise and watch the waves coming in moments before this giant Saturn was going to burst into action and propel off. And it was a most memorable moment, looking out and seeing some evidence of the millions of people and yet not any precise indication that there were that many people paying attention to what we were doing at that very moment, and here I was just wandering around. They didn't know that I was wandering around the upper portions of this, looking out at them. It's a bit similar to the brief realization that went through my mind without crystallizing itself into words at the time when we were on the surface, shortly after both of us were out on the surface, of how unique, how ironic it is that two people are so far away from home and yet, at the same time, more people are paying attention to what it is we're doing. That's generally not the case. The further away from home you get, the less people care about you're doing. Q Twenty years ago -- MR. GARRETT: Wait for the -- this young lady here, Jim. Q Muriel Pearson (sp), CBS News. This is a question for all of you. What was the moment of greatest personal fear for each of you during the flight -- besides knowing that you'd have to face all of us when you get back? (Laughter.) MR. ARMSTRONG: Well -- MR. ALDRIN: Compared to that, all the rest are sort of pale and insignificant. (Laughter.) MR. ARMSTRONG: I would just answer that I think probably the thing you fear the most is the unexpected. We were -- used to spend a lot of time practicing our responses to various kinds of failures and abnormal circumstances. And I think we felt fairly comfortable with most of the kinds of things that might happen. The ones you worry about are the ones you didn't foresee and didn't properly prepared yourself for. MR. COLLINS: Well, I would say, you know, flying to the Moon is a long and delicate daisy chain of events; any link in the chain, if it gets severed, ruins the whole thing. The one that -- it wasn't fear, but it was mistrust. The one that I mistrusted the most was the rendevous part. That was the thing that was on my mind primarily was bringing these two vehicles -- bringing this ungainly looking critter back up from the surface of the Moon successfully. MR. GARRETT: Okay. Let's go. Can we get the mike over to John Getter (ph) back there? Q John Getter (sp?), KHOU-TV. Gentlemen, I think what we're all struggling to try to explain here -- maybe you can help us with -- is an understanding of what was different then from what is now that allowed the whole world to get behind such a project for a short time? Is it simply that the Russians aren't as bad a guys as they used to be, that we have done this, that we don't have a dynamic president in the White House? Is it some combination? Is it just the times? What? And I'd be curious to hear from all of you on that. MR. ARMSTRONG: It, of course, is a question of interest to many people; difficult to categorize. I'm not sure that I am better able than any one of you to respond to that question. We all search for ways to make the right decisions and encourage the enthusiasm and support of the public at large for those right decisions. And perhaps there are some other thoughts that might contribute to your answer. MR. ALDRIN: I think we all sense what you're trying to point at. Those years that were ripe for a commitment of that nature in the '60s were ones of international uncertainty and perhaps a bit of a questioning of where our technical competence was relative to some of the unknowns, exactly what the Soviets were able to do then. A lot of that uncertainty has changed now, but I think we all sense that there's an exponential increasing of technology and capabilities to do things, and certainly space is a challenge to go out there. And I think just naturally we would like to expect responses to come to that challenge of the frontier, the cutting edge of technology demonstrations, to respond with a significant -- of growing series of achievements. That's a difficult thing to respond to, because the capability technically does exist to do a lot of things, but also their price tag begins to go up rather significantly, and that tends to put things a little bit -- space them out a little. But once establishing an expectation of interesting, significant achievements of technology in space, I think we'd all just naturally like to see them continuing on in some fashion. Q Mr. Collins, the same question. MR. COLLINS: Well, the world in the '80s is a lot more complicated than the world of the '60s, at least in this country. President Kennedy said that we were going to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth -- that was his goal. President Bush, whom I consider to be a president as dynamic as Kennedy, I think, in today's climate, would have to say, "I think we ought to dedicate ourselves to the goal of perhaps considering appointing a commission, after due deliberation with the Congress -- (laughter) -- of investigating the feasibility of certain long-range goals for the space program, perhaps even including a mission to Mars" -- (laughter). It's just, you know, it's just a sign of the times. The times are a lot more complicated today, plus there were a couple of precipitating events that caused Apollo to be launched that do not exist today. Q Max Gomez from KYW-TV in Philadelphia. Let me try to put a slightly different spin on that same question, and see if we have any better luck. You've all expressed some significant support for an expanded role of America and space exploration and a permanent place in space. The public, I think the problem is, they don't understand exactly why is it important that we continue to explore. And is that important for America? Is it important for perhaps mankind in general to continue to explore? And then, just as importantly, because it's part of the argument that keeps going back and forth even within NASA, does man need to be part of that exploration? MR. ARMSTRONG: A long question. Certainly, I don't view manned flights and robotic or unmanned flights as being adversarial in any way. That Magellan probe to the surface of Venus has gone places that I don't think any of my colleagues or myself want to go. And similarly, with Galileo, that will go places where man will never go. I have great difficulty in visualizing man going to those places. There are places are limited to robotics. They're the only thing that can do the job. On the other hand, at this juncture, their ability to analyze unforeseen events is limited, and consequently, man can be amused and amazed and a robot can be neither. But I think it's a good question and a fair question and, probably, the question and it is -- you know, what is it about exploration, and I think it's just inherent in the human condition. I don't know whether we have an exploration gene or whether it's something that we acquire. I think we have a curiosity gene and that's very, very close to exploration, but people have always gone where they've been able to go. Some people have. Some tribes have been happy to stay in the rain forest, but if you go back to the littoral nations of Western Europe, they've always had an obsession to go out to the far corners of the globe and it's just inherent in us and I think particularly in this country. We are a nation of explorers. I mean, we've started on the East Coast, we went to the West Coast and then vertically. I mean, starting with the Wright brothers, Yeager through the sound barrier, Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon, it's in our tradition, it's in our culture, it's a fundamental thing to want to go, to touch, to see, to smell, to learn and that I think will continue in the future. Q Is it important to keep doing it? MR. COLLINS: Yes. Hell, yes, it is. Part of the human condition. MR. ALDRIN: In the past year in doing some research with my co-author for MEN FROM EARTH, I've been able to reflect a lot more and to verify in my own mind just how much of a continued space race was going on. And even though glasnost has not opened up confirmation of exactly what the true nature of the Soviet lunar landing program was, it certainly seems conceivable to me that something akin to a Challenger could have opened the door to Leonov and Sevastyanov being known as the first two individuals to be on the Moon, and I think that our space program, had that occured, would have had a bit more continuity to it, between then and now, in trying to continue to catch up. I think the international situation and a position of leadership, as we view nations beginning to catch up and, in some ways, surpass us in their abilities and space achievements. Certainly, the French, the Japanese and the Soviets are moving into capabilities for manned exploration in the future. And I don't think we can be followers as long as it appears now to take to put something together to be responsive. The fact that we could respond so rapidly, in an eight-year period, from a challenge to do something that was very nebulously understood, to be able to achieve it -- it seems to -- projections now seen to take a good bit longer, so catching up would be more difficult. So, I think leadership is one where we need to be on the cutting edge to be able to do what we choose we do in the future. MR. GARRETT: Okay, we're going to take a question I understand we have from our overflow auditorium down on the fifth floor. If you will state your question, name and affiliation, please. Q Yes, Chris Rouche with Scripps League Newspapers. A question to all three of you. If you could relive one moment of the mission, which moment would you pick and a brief reason why. MR. ARMSTRONG: I didn't understand it. Q If you could pick one moment of the Apollo XI mission to relive now, which moment would you pick and a brief reason why. MR. ARMSTRONG: I guess I would pick a moment when I was looking out the window and looking at a full Earth from a long distance. MR. ALDRIN: I'm most aware of my observational limitations to see exactly what's happening in rapid-pace events. And I'd like to replay again by being there the last 20 seconds, 10 seconds before touchdown and 10 seconds after. I'd just like to run through that again. MR. COLLINS: I remember most vividly the picture of the lunar horizon and the LM ascent stage in the foreground with these two guys in it, and then the Earth popping up at that instant so you have all three lined up. You've got three billion people over there, two people up here, and that's it. (Laughter.) That's what I remember. MR. ALDRIN: And the one behind the camera that had the foresight to record it on film. MR. GARRETT: I'd say we'll have one more question from down below. Is there a question from the fifth floor? Q My name is Jeff Nesmith (?). I'm with the Cox Newspapers. Mr. Armstrong, your experience have excited millions of people, yet it seems like you're kind of bored and even a little resentful, sometimes, of the excitment other people feel about what you have experienced. Why do you suppose that's true? Why do you think you leave that impression with people? MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I can't put myself in your eyes. That's not the way I feel, but if that's your perception, I'll ask you to explain it to me. MR. GARRETT: Okay, Howard? Q Howard Benedict, Associated Press. There were some reports that the original flight plan called for Buzz to be the first man to get out and walk on the Moon, and Mike Collins, in his book CARRYING THE FIRE mentions or hints at dispute between Neil and Buzz over this. In fact, he mentions a particularly stormy night when you, over a bottle of scotch, settled some of your disputes. How did it -- was there a dispute between you two over who should be the first on the Moon? And how was that selection made? For Neil and Buzz. MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, both of these gentlemen have written on that subject and I haven't, so I'll tell you that, although they may or may not have known what my feelings, in fact, were at the time, that I had zero input, no input whatever, into that decision. Q Peter Ford, WRC-TV in Washington. We'd like to get some fresh voice tape for a voiceover for all that video you sent back from the Moon. I wonder if the three of you could each recall, or give a brief commentary and your response to the feelings you had: Mike, when you first came up over the Moon into lunar orbit; Buzz, when you were going into the 20 seconds you just described you'd like to relive; and Neil, when you stepped down on the Moon on the surface. MR. COLLINS: I thought I just did. (Laughter.) Q Can you describe when you came up over there -- when you first came in there, when you first came into lunar orbit and you realized you were really close to making history. MR. COLLINS: I don't know. I would talk separately about that, I guess. Q Then Buzz, could you recall what you saw and what you felt in that 20 seconds or in the 10 seconds you said you would like to relive? MR. ALDRIN: I think the reason I selected those is because there were events happening rather rapidly, and I could tell you that my feelings were "gee, golly, fantastic, is this really happening;" but no, I knew I was there. I was trying the best to be as receiving a human as I could. Why? To savor the moment so I could tell you about it afterwards? No, to respond if needed to some requirement on my part to be responsive. In general, I think when things were happening in a hurry, that was our feeling, our sense. MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm not certain I understand the question, but I'll answer anyway. (Laughs.) The touchdown itself from my point of view was a real high in terms of elation. Not so much for the instant, but because it marked the achievement that a third of a million people had been working for a decade to accomplish. And it was a feeling of we -- a third of a million people -- managed it. Q Vincent Deljulaise (ph) from UPI. Had America kept going to the Moon over the last 20 years, would we have seen, in your gentlemen's opinions, manned colonies there, perhaps an observatory of some type, and what is the feasibility of establishing a Moon-based telescope and perhaps colonies or even cities on the Moon? MR. ARMSTRONG: That's a largely hypothetical kind of question, but had we had a continuing lunar program over the subsequent two decades, I'm sure that we would have devised habitable modules that were enjoyable, and processes for developing lunar resources, extracting oxygen from the rocks and hopefully finding hydrogen which is the -- perhaps the most missing element -- hydrogen and carbon are very rare up there, and would have developed a lot of science in that time period. Would it have cost a lot? Probably. Maybe we weren't aware of it, or I wasn't at the time, but I think the signs were clear to those in management that, by the time we reached there, there was an ending to the Apollo program somewhere downstream in terms of the number of landings that we could accomplish, and I guess an option is to stretch those out over a period of time, but that generally costs a good bit more. Hindsight or retrospect is always a -- you're treated to be more brilliant in looking back on it, but certainly, I think we did the best at the time with that we had left. We flew Skylab, a remarkable achievement and a great opportunity. I think it was overshadowed by the fact that we continued on landings and it was a bit of a letdown, but to have built two of those and flown one, and then allowed it to burn up; when we now look at the difficulties we have gathering together the funding, the support for something of a smaller volume, maybe less achievement, we certainly shouldn't have let that one come down. We should have flown the second one, and I think the course of the space program would have changed enormously had we done that. I'm sure that we would have liked to have continued on and establishing a particular base, including a telescope on the far side, and that certainly is one of the premium objectives that a science return to the Moon will have as one of its goals. Q Mr. Collins, do you have an opinion on that? MR. COLLINS: On the Moon, no. No, I'm Mars. (Laughter.) Q Elisa Teichner (sp) from RAI, Italian television. A question to Mr. Aldrin and to the other two gentlemen, also, regarding more the future than the past. What do you think that the 20-year-olds of today know about your expedition, and what do you think the impact of your great enterprise was on the new generation, and do they know about it? How do they feel about it? MR. ALDRIN: Well, I think the first person to begin to project a difference in those that grew up since that time, that I can recall at least chatting with, was Buckminster Fuller. He had a definite sense that those who grew up since Apollo looked at life differently than those of us that perhaps experienced portions of the Depression. There are not the same limits to those who grow up seeing that one could achieve such an audacious thing as land on the Moon when you look right now and you've nowhere near doing that. That is a tremendous achievement back in the past. And you just feel naturally that you can recreate that. So I think that there's a sense of a potential that is maybe not being exercised that may exist in those that have grown up since then. MR. COLLINS: Well, I was -- I don't know what to say to 20-year-olds. Mostly, they have more answers than we have. But, you know, I would try to say that it is possible to pick a goal, to work toward it, to work very hard toward it, and to be successful in it, even though that goal is very complicated and all-consuming, and that whatever young people choose to do with their lives, they can in some ways use Project Apollo as a model for how to organize themselves into pursuing their own goals and doing them well. Q For Neil or Buzz -- in subsequent flights, several of the moonwalkers exercised points of personal curiosity in this unique environment. And I don't recall your reporting such activities. Was there any point of personal -- such as hitting a golf ball or dropping a hammer and a feather together in the vacuum? Was there any point of personal curiosity, such as that, that you either pursued or wanted to and didn't get a chance to? MR. ALDRIN: I seem to recall some people saying they thought maybe I was a little reckless in prancing around rather early in being on the Moon. That was well thought out and planned and, in retrospect, when I got back I expected people to have gotten the calipers out and measured precisely the rate of motion and trying to relate that to mobility. But instead, they were satisfied with a subjective response of a human saying that it was much easier to move around than we thought. I just think we didn't have the luxury, during the time we had, to be able to follow through on something that we might have decided of a personal nature, nor did we beforehand have the freedom perhaps to entertain taking advantage of time for personal activities. I think the time that humans spent on the Moon is precious, and I -- as neat as it might be to do some interesting, neat little facetious tricks to lighten the moment, I just had a responsibility to do the most with the time that we had. MR. ARMSTRONG: I can't really add anything. I didn't have any ideas that were any better than those that were presented us for our EVA work, so we were delighted to try to get those done. Q Greg Linebaugh (sp) Space Explorer Magazine. Would you guys tell us some of your career plans in the next five years until you're subjected to the 25th anniversary press conference? MR. ARMSTRONG: Career plans? Was that -- career plans? MR. GARRETT: I think that's what it was. Q What you're going to do in the next five years. MR. ARMSTRONG: Keep doing what we're doing, try to do it better -- (chuckles). MR. COLLINS: I'm trying to -- I'm trying to earn my living as a writer. I'm writing a book on Mars. I intend to continue writing. I don't know what after the Mars book, but I'll think of something. MR. ALDRIN: About five years ago, I was exploring some creative ways of continuous cycling trips between Earth and Mars, and then I turned -- or Earth and the Moon -- and then I turned that attention onto Mars, and it now seems to be gathering a bit of favor within the exploration office. That is a spaceship that continues to move around the Sun, and swings by Mars and Earth, and Mars and Earth, and we can get on it and off it as it swings by. And so I want to continue to pursue those activities of individual contribution with whoever will listen. I just finished writing a book. I need a lot of help, rather than Mike, who can -- seems to be able to do this by himself. And I had envisioned being able to deal a little bit more with the lessons of Apollo as it may help apply directly to what our choices are for the future, but it didn't get done. So I think that there's some unfinished business in terms of thinking of recording some things within the next five years. We may not get it by '92 or by '94 or so. I'm going to be in there pushing and pulling, see if I can't take the benefit of my experience in some way. Even though the technical parts of it are not that financially rewarding, if I can tell a story to someone else, why, maybe there's an ethical honorarium that can be -- come my way that can compensate maybe for not the direct return for what I feel is a direct creative contribution. MR. GARRETT: Okay, these gentlemen have very busy schedules. We're going to take two more questions and then wrap up this session. Go ahead, right here. Q Greg Barr (sp) with Space Daily. Twenty years ago, it seemed that it was very natural and appropriate for a government agency to take on the Apollo project and accomplish it. Today, it seems to be problematic in terms of costs and so on, whether we continue to do mission of that scale. Would you say that -- well, for any of you or all of you -- would you stand behind recommendations that more stress or emphasis should be put on getting private entrepreneurs and the commercial sector involved in a more rapid fashion than is being accomplished today. MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, of course, that concept has been encouraged in recent years. I think predominantly the problem is that the projects are quite massive and it's very difficult to do little projects that are within the reach of typical industrial concerns. And consequently, it takes some united effort, and because many of the activities are regulated by the governments involved, why, the government is to some extent a participant in any case. Q Annie Grow (?), with the Orlando Sentinel. You all have been quite circumspect and diplomatic thus far in talking about the likelihood for significant funding for all the ventures that you are advocating so strongly. Do any of you in fairly frank terms here in diplomatic Washington want to talk about what you think is the likelihood in the next four years of the Bush administration of getting the kind of money you want? MR. ARMSTRONG: I have no idea. MR. ALDRIN: I think all we can do is hope. END FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE COPYRIGHT (C) 1989, FEDERAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Eric W. Tilenius | Princeton Planetary Soc. | ewtileni@pucc.BITNET Quadrangle Club | 315 West College | ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU 33 Prospect Avenue | Princeton University | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni Princeton, NJ 08540 | Princeton, NJ 08544 | princeton!pucc!ewtileni 609-683-4411 | 516-424-2298 | DELPHI: TILENIUS ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #12 *******************