News How come you didn't see the whole of the Moon?

[n122vu]

Famously reclusive Neil Armstrong breaks silence to answer the burning question

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-come-you-didnt-see-the-whole-of-the-moon-2157408.html

 

[Urwumpe]

Looks like Neil was just waiting for the first really good question about the moon landings to arise. :thumbup:

 

[Lucy]

I think he's hoping that speaking about it may add weight to his campaign to take scientists back there - his is a name known the world over, as the first man to set foot on the moon, and if he thinks we should go back I can imagine many will join to follow in that sentiment - sadly, however, the apathetic "Meh, we went there, it's done" attitude seems to prevail.

As has been said before, soon the entire episode in human accomplishment will pass from living memory, and with that I think it will become much less likely we will return there in what remains of my lifetime. It is an opinion I dislike, but it remains mine.

 

[garyw]

sadly, however, the apathetic "Meh, we went there, it's done" attitude seems to prevail.

Which always makes me laugh especially as NASA and other space agencies keep finding out new things about the moon, oddly enough, exactly the sort of thing you'd want to send an astronaunt there for a good look.
Plus, there is a lot of science you can do on the moon which will extend our knowledge of the universe.

 

[Lucy]

As Mr. Armstrong himself is quoted as saying in the article, there remain 14 million square miles of luna left to explore. The potential for science up there is immense, and I think I've said before that if NASA or other space organisations are only operating spaceflights based on what the public think are "awesome" or "cool" things to watch, they're doing it for the wrong reasons.

 

[T.Neo]

if NASA or other space organisations are only operating spaceflights based on what the public think are "awesome" or "cool" things to watch, they're doing it for the wrong reasons.

I don't think "awesome" or "cool" are bad in and of themselves. They foster support for the space program from the population at large and indirectly encourage an interest in science and engineering in general... I do not see how that could be bad.

 

[deltawing777]

Nasa needs to get away from the govt and the beurocracy that goes along with it. And save money in the process. They need to restructure . Nasa needs to get back to being nasa and back to the moon or wherever they want not let govt dictate what and how they do things based on funding. Just my opinion and im sticking to it

 

[garyw]

Nasa needs to get away from the govt and the beurocracy that goes along with it. And save money in the process. They need to restructure . Nasa needs to get back to being nasa and back to the moon or wherever they want not let govt dictate what and how they do things based on funding. Just my opinion and im sticking to it

They can't because they ARE one of those Government agencies and they have to follow the rules of law which is what Congress lays down before them.
The American taxpayer wants value for the dollar and therefore NASA's spending is very much under scrutiny. That's life.

The only way for NASA to get back to the dreamy hay-day of the 1960's is for them to be privatised, given a massive funding boost and given Government contracts for flights.

 

[deltawing777]

They can't because they ARE one of those Government agencies and they have to follow the rules of law which is what Congress lays down before them.
The American taxpayer wants value for the dollar and therefore NASA's spending is very much under scrutiny. That's life.

The only way for NASA to get back to the dreamy hay-day of the 1960's is for them to be privatised, given a massive funding boost and given Government contracts for flights.

Thats the point I was trying to make exactly get away from the govt

 

[PhantomCruiser]

As much as I'd like to see NASA head towards the moon again, I don't think it'll happen. NASA is a government entity, receiving government funding. I work for an independant government corporation, and it does not receive government funding, so with the exeption of oversight, we can operate somewhat autonomously so long as we stay within the TVA Act (of 1936).
What will get us "back" to the moon, is either a shift in government to 'want' it, or private corporations who somehow see some money to be made.

If they got away from government, then they wouldn't be NASA anymore...

 

[deltawing777]

If they got away from government, then they wouldn't be NASA anymore...

Then so be it Call it ASA!

 

[garyw]

Can't be done. NASA is interwoven in the Government system. It would take decades to remove NASA from that system because of all ITAR segregation and recertification. Some astronaunts are military on assignment to NASA, some of the comms kit on the ISS is military with current encryption keys, all of that would have to be vetted and changed/removed.

It's a lot of work for no gain.

 

[deltawing777]

Can't be done. NASA is interwoven in the Government system. It would take decades to remove NASA from that system because of all ITAR segregation and recertification. Some astronaunts are military on assignment to NASA, some of the comms kit on the ISS is military with current encryption keys, all of that would have to be vetted and changed/removed.

It's a lot of work for no gain.

I hear SpaceX is hiring just messing

 

[abninf]

41 years later and he still has to deal with silly questions

 

[ryan]

What a silly question, of course they were going to be a bit timid on Apollo 11, but as the missions went on they were walking for 7 hours.
I also read somewhere that landing and walking on the moon doesn't really hold credit with him anymore. If he was younger who knows what he would do to do something better.
Ryan.

 

[Parsec]

As much as I'd like to see NASA head towards the moon again, I don't think it'll happen. NASA is a government entity, receiving government funding. I work for an independant government corporation, and it does not receive government funding, so with the exeption of oversight, we can operate somewhat autonomously so long as we stay within the TVA Act (of 1936).
What will get us "back" to the moon, is either a shift in government to 'want' it, or private corporations who somehow see some money to be made.

If they got away from government, then they wouldn't be NASA anymore...

Maybe what we need is a private corporation chartered by the government, similar to the Federal Reserve, only focused on space. The banks certainly have plenty of capital to invest in job creating infrastructure since they haven't been making new loans with their bailout money.

 

[Kevon Daye]

The only way for NASA to get back to the dreamy hay-day of the 1960's is for them to be privatised, given a massive funding boost and given Government contracts for flights.

Or if the USSR is resurrected and they immediately begin plans to go to the moon:rofl: Then the government would get their heads out of their butts.

 

[Lucy]

I don't think "awesome" or "cool" are bad in and of themselves. They foster support for the space program from the population at large and indirectly encourage an interest in science and engineering in general... I do not see how that could be bad.

I don't say they are bad things, my point was they should not be the basis for determining where NASA goes next.

 

[Izack]

I wouldn't consider that a silly question, in light of all of the other mind-numbingly silly questions floating about on the Internet and in the media.