Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Casiella on 25 Aug 2012, 13:36
-
One of the greatest heroes of modern history, Neil Armstrong, has passed away.
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/25/13478643-astronaut-neil-armstrong-first-man-to-walk-on-moon-dies-at-age-82?chromedomain=usnews
-
Naming the ship 'Armstrong' for tonight's roam.
-
:cry:
-
:(
-
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/9448/1284267422155.jpg)
-
I don't believe in the 'one of the greatest heroes of modern times' thing, but here's to you.
R.I.P Neil Armstrong. o7
-
I don't believe in the 'one of the greatest heroes of modern times' thing, but here's to you.
Is this because of your definition of hero or because you do not think it took heroism to do what he and others did?
-
"Greatest hero" is a subjective term, of course, but the point remains that the personal fortitude and skill went in to his efforts.
A salute to a guy who did amazing things.
-
:cry: as well
To Mars already, ffs.
-
Damn it, that man was awesome.
-
I certainly regard him as a hero. This is sad.
-
:cry:
-
He lived for 82 years though, which is not so bad.
-
Yeah, if you have to go, go at the age of 82 after having walked on the fucking moon.
-
He was from Ohio.
Just felt the need to say that.
RIP, and thanks for helping our state be known for something other than race riots and burning rivers.
-
For those who may ask what they can do to honor Neil, we have a simple request. Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink.
-
Yeah, I loved that.
And I dunno about you, but the first man to walk on another world after manually piloting that ship? And having the balls to say "yeah we'll do our own launch from here"?
I can't think of anybody I admire more. Certainly there are a few others I'll classify with him (like, say, Aldrin, although I like him less on a personal level, and Magellan, and Gagarin)... but there aren't many others whose names will last forever like his.
-
but there aren't many others whose names will last forever like his.
I hope Sagan's name is among those, but yes, Armstrong is pretty much guaranteed an important namesake settlement on the Moon.
What I admire most about the man was that after he became a major historic icon, he basically pulled a Cincinnatus. Availed of every honor and any position or privilege he could have asked for, the man went home and became a teacher. Humility.
-
(like, say, Aldrin, although I like him less on a personal level, and Magellan, and Gagarin).
I read Aldrith at first.
I guess he has that effect.
-
I don't believe in the 'one of the greatest heroes of modern times' thing, but here's to you.
Is this because of your definition of hero or because you do not think it took heroism to do what he and others did?
No, more like there is a small part of me that wonder if the first-ever moon-landing was legit at all, or a clever ploy to beat the Soviets to the finish-line. I was rather torn between saluting a great person who has passed away and not doing so at all due to questioning his 'greatness'. I decided to compromise on the middle, as it was.
All but irrelevant though, Armstrong did great work and deserve his salute, at the very least.
-
there is a small part of me that wonder if the first-ever moon-landing was legit at all
:roll:
-
there is a small part of me that wonder if the first-ever moon-landing was legit at all
:roll:
:roll:
-
there is a small part of me that wonder if the first-ever moon-landing was legit at all
:roll:
Moon Landing Sketch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw). Mitchell & Webb take a funny stab at the discussion.
In addition, here are recent pictures (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/index.php?/archives/76-LROCs-First-Look-at-the-Apollo-Landing-Sites.html) taken by LRO (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/index.html) of 5 of 6 Lunar landing locations.
(http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/five_sites_anot.png)
-
Bloodbird, that's about equivalent to believing in ancient astronauts and a 6000 year old earth.
Yes, I'm serious.
edit due to reading fail
-
RIP Neil Armstrong and thank you for both your humility and service. May there be more like you in the future of our race.
-
Watching it again makes that apollo capsule look incredibly primitive. Got a lot of nerves to jump into that piece of "junk" to go to the moon (that's how it looks, not actually what it is, especially in the late 60's).
-
So many dead astronauts lately. Very sad.
-
Watching it again makes that apollo capsule look incredibly primitive. Got a lot of nerves to jump into that piece of "junk" to go to the moon (that's how it looks, not actually what it is, especially in the late 60's).
I remember a story around the opening of the Iron Curtain, when an ESA delagation went to visit the Baikonur cosmodrome and witnessed a crew working on a Russian rocket - hammering in rivets with sledgehammers. Which chilled the ESA people to the bone, because if you hit an Ariane V with a hammer, it breaks. Veracity somewhat disputed, but contains grains of truth about the general Russian approach to engineering, I think..
-
Watching it again makes that apollo capsule look incredibly primitive. Got a lot of nerves to jump into that piece of "junk" to go to the moon (that's how it looks, not actually what it is, especially in the late 60's).
I remember a story around the opening of the Iron Curtain, when an ESA delagation went to visit the Baikonur cosmodrome and witnessed a crew working on a Russian rocket - hammering in rivets with sledgehammers. Which chilled the ESA people to the bone, because if you hit an Ariane V with a hammer, it breaks. Veracity somewhat disputed, but contains grains of truth about the general Russian approach to engineering, I think..
ESA's culture is very much based on NASA's culture, in which high performance systems are built with exacting precision. From what I have read, Russian methodology is more brute force, solving engineering problems with straightforward approaches.
The approach simplifies the engineering, but also limits what the system is capable of doing. There are bits and pieces of the Soviet Lunar program lying around. N-1 Rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)) LK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_Lander)
The USSR LK vs the USA LM really shows the result of the different design philosophies when it comes to rockets and spacecraft, where mass is of critical importance.
However, with precision, comes less margin for error.
-
"American components, Russian components...
ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!"
-
Another tall tale of Soviet engineering - there were similar stories around Viktor Belenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko)'s defection. He brought a MiG-25 along with him, thought to be a particularly high-performance modern fighter jet. When the CIA got their hands on it, they thought they were being pranked - in some places, the damned thing had patches of rust on it. With use of high-tech avionics and exotic composite materials soaring, the Soviets had nevertheless built the majority out of sheet metal. Steel, to be exact. Hand-welded and, in places, riveted. The avionics used vacuum tubes.
-
Neil DeGrasse Tyson made the interesting point that July 20th 1969 is the only positive event of the last 50 years for which everyone (who was alive, anyway) knows where they were at that moment.
-
No boasting, no bullying, just a soft-spoken man who insisted he was only doing his job. They're the heroes we like best, yes?
I liked this because I tend to agree.
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/aug/27/was-neil-armstrong-a-real-hero)
-
Watching it again makes that apollo capsule look incredibly primitive. Got a lot of nerves to jump into that piece of "junk" to go to the moon (that's how it looks, not actually what it is, especially in the late 60's).
I remember a story around the opening of the Iron Curtain, when an ESA delagation went to visit the Baikonur cosmodrome and witnessed a crew working on a Russian rocket - hammering in rivets with sledgehammers. Which chilled the ESA people to the bone, because if you hit an Ariane V with a hammer, it breaks. Veracity somewhat disputed, but contains grains of truth about the general Russian approach to engineering, I think..
ESA's culture is very much based on NASA's culture, in which high performance systems are built with exacting precision. From what I have read, Russian methodology is more brute force, solving engineering problems with straightforward approaches.
The approach simplifies the engineering, but also limits what the system is capable of doing. There are bits and pieces of the Soviet Lunar program lying around. N-1 Rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)) LK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_Lander)
The USSR LK vs the USA LM really shows the result of the different design philosophies when it comes to rockets and spacecraft, where mass is of critical importance.
However, with precision, comes less margin for error.
One story I've heard - and I don't know if it's true or not, but it does seem plausible - is how NASA supposedly spent a lot of money to design a pen that would work reliably in a zero-g environment. The Soviets, meanwhile, used pencils.
-
Watching it again makes that apollo capsule look incredibly primitive. Got a lot of nerves to jump into that piece of "junk" to go to the moon (that's how it looks, not actually what it is, especially in the late 60's).
I remember a story around the opening of the Iron Curtain, when an ESA delagation went to visit the Baikonur cosmodrome and witnessed a crew working on a Russian rocket - hammering in rivets with sledgehammers. Which chilled the ESA people to the bone, because if you hit an Ariane V with a hammer, it breaks. Veracity somewhat disputed, but contains grains of truth about the general Russian approach to engineering, I think..
ESA's culture is very much based on NASA's culture, in which high performance systems are built with exacting precision. From what I have read, Russian methodology is more brute force, solving engineering problems with straightforward approaches.
The approach simplifies the engineering, but also limits what the system is capable of doing. There are bits and pieces of the Soviet Lunar program lying around. N-1 Rocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)) LK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_Lander)
The USSR LK vs the USA LM really shows the result of the different design philosophies when it comes to rockets and spacecraft, where mass is of critical importance.
However, with precision, comes less margin for error.
One story I've heard - and I don't know if it's true or not, but it does seem plausible - is how NASA supposedly spent a lot of money to design a pen that would work reliably in a zero-g environment. The Soviets, meanwhile, used pencils.
Yeah, I've always liked that story. It's apparently not quite true, though:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
-
It may not have come across as such, but there are important lessons from both engineering philosophies.
The "Soviet" approach means that the rocket engines can have a lose nut passed through a rocket engine and the engine still successfully operate (iirc SpaceX does this to Merlin 1 Engines). You could never do this to the Shuttle Main Engines (or Delta IV engines).