Post: #1

Quote:CINCINNATI (AP) — Neil Armstrong made "one giant leap for mankind" with a small step onto the moon.

He commanded the historic landing of the Apollo 11 spacecraft on the moon July 20, 1969, capping the most daring of the 20th century's scientific expeditions and becoming the first man to walk on the moon.

His first words after the feat are etched in history books and the memories of the spellbound millions who heard them in a live broadcast.

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," Armstrong said. He insisted later that he had said "a'' before man, but said he, too, couldn't hear it in the version that went to the world.

Armstrong, who had bypass surgery earlier this month, died Saturday at age 82 from what his family said were complications of heart procedures. His family didn't say where he died; he had lived in suburban Cincinnati.

He was "a reluctant American hero who always believed he was just doing his job," his family said in a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/neil-armstrong-1st...nance.html

Post: #2

A true American hero, and a real man. They don't make many like him these days.

Post: #3

There are a lot of doubts about the whole lunar landing.
I'm not really sure that it actually happened.
Probably it's one of the biggest frauds ever and it was made to foster the American image all over the world and to show that the USA could win the space race against the USSR.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landin...y_theories

Post: #4

Life is short. GO HARD!!!

Don't waste your life trying to please other people.

Post: #5

Didn't Armstrong punch a guy in the face who questioned whether he was actually on the moon?

Post: #6

See, THIS is newsworthy. Neil's the fucking man. I remember hearing on NPR that this chick had passed away: http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-23/us/us...seven-crew
And they went on about how she inspired women across the country to follow their dreams. She was a hero.

I called horseshit. The first American woman in space? La-di-fucking da. Where were women during Project Mercury and Gemini when men were REALLY risking their lives? Strapping themselves on top of a fucking rocket and getting blown to smithereens, dying in cabin fires, reentries, landings? Men are the ones who built space travel from the ground up at the cost of their own lives, risking everything for true glory, for themselves and at the call of their country. Once the system was more or less built and technology refined, THEN some knucklehead gets the idea to let a chick on board and now she's a fucking hero. Gimme a break.

Post: #7

(08-26-2012 10:51 AM)Menace Wrote:  A true American hero, and a real man. They don't make many like him these days.

So true. That's because the culture that fostered them has been largely destroyed.

Deliberately.

This country used to produce these men by the millions: braves, strong, smart, manly, yet good and humble. They were the standard.

Now, they are the exceptions in a sea of whiners, douchebags, thugs, hipsters, boys and wimps.

Remember a few years ago when the airline pilot landed his jet in the Hudson? What struck me about the coverage of the incident was the personality of the pilot and the way the media and the public talked about the him-how heroic, brave, cool under pressure, caring and good he was. You could tell from their tone that they recognized-as SWPL and PC as the media are- that here was the sort of man that you just don't see very often anymore.

His beautiful wife was interviewed and it was clear from the way she talked about him that he was not just a man that she loved; he was a man that she admired

This culture is going to have to crash and burn before this sort of man becomes the role model again.

Post: #8

Man that's such a shame.

Post: #9

(08-26-2012 11:04 AM)Way Cool Jr Wrote:  There are a lot of doubts about the whole lunar landing.
I'm not really sure that it actually happened.
Probably it's one of the biggest frauds ever and it was made to foster the American image all over the world and to show that the USA could win the space race against the USSR.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landin...y_theories

When you say probably, it implies that a preponderance of the evidence points toward the moon landing being faked. In fact, the opposite is true.

Post: #10

(08-26-2012 01:02 PM)j r Wrote:  

(08-26-2012 11:04 AM)Way Cool Jr Wrote:  There are a lot of doubts about the whole lunar landing.
I'm not really sure that it actually happened.
Probably it's one of the biggest frauds ever and it was made to foster the American image all over the world and to show that the USA could win the space race against the USSR.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landin...y_theories

When you say probably, it implies that a preponderance of the evidence points toward the moon landing being faked. In fact, the opposite is true.

As I stated before I'm not sure that it happened or not.
I keep my reasonable doubt, maybe it's true maybe it's not.

Armstrong, regardless of this, remains a man that incorporated the good old values of America, he'll be missed.

Post: #11

(08-26-2012 11:04 AM)Way Cool Jr Wrote:  There are a lot of doubts about the whole lunar landing.
I'm not really sure that it actually happened.
Probably it's one of the biggest frauds ever and it was made to foster the American image all over the world and to show that the USA could win the space race against the USSR.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landin...y_theories

Post: #12

(08-26-2012 11:26 AM)Menace Wrote:  Didn't Armstrong punch a guy in the face who questioned whether he was actually on the moon?

No. Buzz Aldrin did that. Aldrin was the more brazen of the two.

Post: #13

(08-26-2012 11:04 AM)Way Cool Jr Wrote:  There are a lot of doubts about the whole lunar landing.
I'm not really sure that it actually happened.
Probably it's one of the biggest frauds ever and it was made to foster the American image all over the world and to show that the USA could win the space race against the USSR.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landin...y_theories

Post: #14

I'm from Cincinnati, it's been a big deal around town. Pretty dope that the first man on the moon lived here, and taught classes at the University of Cincinnati.

He also donated a rock he brought back from the moon to the local Natural History Museum, which will be open free through Labor Day in tribute to one of our local heroes.

Rest in peace, Mr. Armstrong.

Post: #15

This article about Armstrong got my attention.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-la...trong-mars

Post: #16

(08-27-2012 02:06 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  This article about Armstrong got my attention.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-la...trong-mars

This guy has a laundry list of space travel expectations yet nary a mention of the astronomical(pun intended) costs involved. Sending a man to mars with current technology would be really dangerous as well. And there would be very little return on investment other than pounding our chest and saying we did it for the sake of doing it. For the time being robots can do research on mars for a fraction of the cost of sending men there. That's probably what we should continue doing until the cost of space travel becomes cheaper, or someone like Richard Branson bankrolls it himself.

Post: #17

(08-26-2012 01:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-26-2012 11:04 AM)Way Cool Jr Wrote:  There are a lot of doubts about the whole lunar landing.
I'm not really sure that it actually happened.
Probably it's one of the biggest frauds ever and it was made to foster the American image all over the world and to show that the USA could win the space race against the USSR.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landin...y_theories

Post: #18

So far I personally think the moon landing never really happened. There are many reasons.

Both sides provide convincing arguments. But until I have a better understanding of the data sheets from both sides I will stick with my gut feeling.

I don't think they had the technology to go through the Van Allen Radiation belts at that time. It was an ego thing and the Americans wanted to take it up a notch because the Soviets launched Sputnik into space and surprised them.

Post: #19

(09-01-2012 04:18 PM)23Billion Wrote:  I don't think they had the technology to go through the Van Allen Radiation belts at that time.

The Sputnik 3 went through the Van Allen Radiation Belt and stayed there, while it orbited the Earth some thousands of times. That was in 1958, over 10 years before the Apollo 11.

Staying in the VARB would be hazardous for humans, but if your travel through the VARB lasts only a few hours, what is the problem? You get irradiated heavily, but you also get irradiated heavily (though less heavily, of course) every time you take a transoceanic flight.

Post: #20

Going through Van Allen Radiation belt is suicidal for human beings, or any living thing for that matter. Sputnik was a sphere with a radio in it with a few antennas. They didn't care if the radiation fried it.

Bro the only example I can think of is the one my prof gave me. Its like cleaning uranium/plutonium rods inside heavy water tanks in the nuclear plants. He told me that around 8 years ago those dudes used to get paid $200 - $300 an hour to do just that, don't know about now. But the level of danger posed to living tissue is unbelievable. Now multiply that level of danger by one hundred million and stand inside the tank for one minute in the presence of gamma rays. It is so dangerous that it is unbelievable. There is no known material that can stop the gamma rays, they go through everything and anything. Even through concrete/steel and can cause some serious damage to the living tissue. We just did not have the technology to have the astronauts pass through the radiation safely. The amount of time they spent in space going to the moon, landing there, and hanging out like that would have fried them at cellular level!!

(09-01-2012 05:07 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 04:18 PM)23Billion Wrote:  I don't think they had the technology to go through the Van Allen Radiation belts at that time.

The Sputnik 3 went through the Van Allen Radiation Belt and stayed there, while it orbited the Earth some thousands of times. That was in 1958, over 10 years before the Apollo 11.

Staying in the VARB would be hazardous for humans, but if your travel through the VARB lasts only a few hours, what is the problem? You get irradiated heavily, but you also get irradiated heavily (though less heavily, of course) every time you take a transoceanic flight.

Post: #21

(09-01-2012 04:18 PM)23Billion Wrote:  So far I personally think the moon landing never really happened. There are many reasons.

Canadian Race Troll?

Post: #22

Huh?

I saw Forest Gump shake hands with President Kennedy.

(09-02-2012 02:47 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 04:18 PM)23Billion Wrote:  So far I personally think the moon landing never really happened. There are many reasons.

Canadian Race Troll?

Post: #23

(09-02-2012 01:01 AM)23Billion Wrote:  Going through Van Allen Radiation belt is suicidal for human beings, or any living thing for that matter. Sputnik was a sphere with a radio in it with a few antennas. They didn't care if the radiation fried it.

Bro the only example I can think of is the one my prof gave me. Its like cleaning uranium/plutonium rods inside heavy water tanks in the nuclear plants. He told me that around 8 years ago those dudes used to get paid $200 - $300 an hour to do just that, don't know about now. But the level of danger posed to living tissue is unbelievable. Now multiply that level of danger by one hundred million and stand inside the tank for one minute in the presence of gamma rays. It is so dangerous that it is unbelievable. There is no known material that can stop the gamma rays, they go through everything and anything. Even through concrete/steel and can cause some serious damage to the living tissue. We just did not have the technology to have the astronauts pass through the radiation safely. The amount of time they spent in space going to the moon, landing there, and hanging out like that would have fried them at cellular level!!

(09-01-2012 05:07 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 04:18 PM)23Billion Wrote:  I don't think they had the technology to go through the Van Allen Radiation belts at that time.

The Sputnik 3 went through the Van Allen Radiation Belt and stayed there, while it orbited the Earth some thousands of times. That was in 1958, over 10 years before the Apollo 11.

Staying in the VARB would be hazardous for humans, but if your travel through the VARB lasts only a few hours, what is the problem? You get irradiated heavily, but you also get irradiated heavily (though less heavily, of course) every time you take a transoceanic flight.

Gamma rays are high energy and can be highly devastating when exposed unshielded in proximity , but not too high in penetration but higher than beta and alpha, gamma rays when going through matter, will be absorbed and reemitted by electrons, thus lose energy and have lower frequencies after the electrons become excited , causing them to lose energy every time they interact with matter. Yes satellite with sensitive parts needs to be shielded.
In fact lower frequency/energy EM waves will have higher penetration, that is why radio waves can travel so far. Lead and high density materials can readily stop gamma rays and alpha particles, even high penetration neutrons when sufficiently thick. In fact any materials sufficient thickness will stop gamma rays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection
quote:"
This means when added thicknesses are used, the shielding multiplies. For example, a practical shield in a fallout shelter is ten halving-thicknesses of packed dirt, which is 90 cm (3 ft) of dirt. This reduces gamma rays to 1/1,024 of their original intensity (1/2 multiplied by itself ten times). Halving thicknesses of some materials, that reduce gamma ray intensity by 50% (1/2) include[3]:
Material
Halving Thickness, inches , Halv. thick., cm Density, g/cm³ Halving Mass, g/cm²
lead 0.4 1.0 11.3 12
steel 0.99 2.5 7.86 20
concrete 2.4 6.1 3.33 20
packed soil 3.6 9.1 1.99 18
water 7.2 18 1.00 18
lumber or other wood 11 29 0.56 16
air 6000 15000 0.0012 18

Column Halving Mass in the chart above indicates mass of material, required to cut radiation by 50%, in grams per square centimetre of protected area.

Post: #24

RIP neil armstrong

Post: #25

Bumping this to suggest people who are interested in his life make time to see "First Man".

Controversy about the flag scene aside, it's an inspiring tribute to a humble man's man, told right through his eyes. I was amazed.