posted 07-23-2008 07:10 AM               

Maybe Armstrong didn't want to win a Nobel Peace Prize, since it seems to now be awarded simply for the amount of media attention one can attract.

The fact is Armstrong is not the "recluse" so often reported through the media. He has a wide schedule of public appearances in which he recounts his experiences and offers his unique position. But he doesn't do so to attract media attention. To marketers such as Godin, not seeking the widest attention seems to be the ultimate sin.

I, for one, am glad that in the long throw of history he will have been a man who lived his life with some dignity, rather than through the rehab/jail-term/do-anything-to-stay-relevant celebrity cult that is so revered and celebrated today.

Could he have done more? Sure. Couldn't we all? But I would wager that Godin knows little about what Armstrong actually does with his life - only what he's picked up from media. But then that is about what I would expect.

posted 07-23-2008 06:06 PM            

Frankly, I didn't realize that NASA was picking a spokesman. All along, I thought they were picking someone to land on the Moon and return to the Earth safely. I guess I thought wrong.

Neil Armstrong has done nothing but bring great dignity to his role as First Man. He has never tarnished his reputation and he has never embarrassed NASA. He has always sought to credit the whole Apollo mission instead of hogging the spotlight for himself (which would have been exceedingly easy to do). What more could anyone want? His integrity is unquestioned and not for sale - the fact that he was asked to help investigate the Challenger disaster says it all for me. NA was respected enough as a man (not just a figurehead) to be asked to join a commission to help discover why a national tragedy had occurred.

I'm not familiar with Mr. Godin and, off of this piece, I don't wish to know much more about him.

posted 07-23-2008 08:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
Frankly, I didn't realize that NASA was picking a spokesman. All along, I thought they were picking someone to land on the Moon and return to the Earth safely. I guess I thought wrong.

---

Now I am not saying that Neil Armstrong didn't do a tremendous job as mission commander. He did. And he fulfilled every requirement given to him, as did every other astronaut of his era and those that followed. Really, in the larger scheme of things, there is no difference between Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, Jim Lovell, John Young, etc. -- all of them excelled at the missions given to them and everyone of them could have accomplished the same goals as the other. In that regard, they were interchangeable. And for every astronaut NASA selected, there were likely a dozen or so more Americans who could have done the same. Fine individuals who for whatever reason, just didn't make the cut (as evidenced by Conrad and Lovell being chosen for the second group of astronauts after being passed over for the first). It is not an insult to acknowledge that astronauts weren't one of a kind. To the contrary, if Armstrong has tried to send any message to the public, it is that he and his colleagues were human like the rest of us, and it was just their fortune and fate that it was their turn at the controls.

No, the argument Godin is putting forth is not that the astronauts did a poor job but rather that NASA didn't understand how to market itself, and frankly, that's a valid criticism. Any organization that can make landing on the Moon seem less interesting than reruns of Gilligan's Island has a serious problem and blaming the public's short attention span is not the answer.

But what Godin overlooks is that Apollo wasn't staged to motivate or entertain the American public. It wasn't even aimed at the population of other countries, the Soviet Union included. No, when you get down to it, Apollo was about sending a clear and undeniable message to a small group of people, the military and political leaders of the United States' enemies that we were able to accomplish the impossible. And if we could land men on the Moon during peacetime, just imagine what we could devise during war, when our lives depended on it (which is why some historians now attribute the moon landing to placing in motion the events that would end the Cold War some 20 years later).

But running the program as they did then leaves NASA in the position it faces now: we've never explored space simply because we wanted to and now that we have that opportunity, we don't know how to sell it to the public. Even the space shuttle and space station were driven by military and political needs. Constellation, on the other hand, was born out of tragedy and the realization that without a larger goal by which to motivate the workforce, we stood to lose more astronauts, not because the flights were any more dangerous but because we had become complacent.

And part of that complacency came as a result of weak leadership. We didn't have a spokesperson leading the charge. NASA quickly adopted Armstrong's way of thinking (not that it was his alone): it's the team rather than the individual, which is an approach that works really well in some cases but for others, fails horribly. Kids today don't know the astronauts' names not because they don't find launches exciting but because NASA is more concerned today with promoting teamwork than they are the individual and they largely fail to understand that you can do both. Americans cheer for their favorite baseball team but can name every player and cite their strengths and weaknesses. They single out MVPs and recognize their value to the team's success.

posted 07-23-2008 10:02 PM            

Great post - I agree with the majority of it. However:

I disagree with the thrust of Godin's argument, that Neil Armstrong was the wrong choice to be the first man on the moon because he failed to teach science to America and strive for the Nobel Peace Price. Why should Armstrong have to live his private life out on the public stage? I know that's not what you are saying, but that's what Godin is basically stating. Neil commanded the mission flawlessly, got his crew home safely and for the many years that have followed, has conducted his life with a quiet dignity. He participates in public events selectively and, by the great majority of accounts even just on this board, is gracious, friendly and warm. He's also very accomodating to fans wishing to take pictures with him. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know and I don't believe there would be any disagreement regarding the character of Neil Armstrong. Now, you can debate whether or not he should have (and should even now) participate more actively in promoting the space program given that he is by far the biggest name and the one to whom the general public would most be drawn. I'm not sure I agree, but you can debate it. However, it is my belief that as Neil has upheld the honor of being first man on the moon extremely well to say the least (from their comments, it appears that most of his fellow astronauts agree), he surely was the right man for the job. Of course, that's just my opinion.

posted 07-23-2008 10:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
Why should Armstrong have to live his private life out on the public stage?

---

posted 07-24-2008 07:41 AM            

This really just comes down to a matter of opinion. I just don't share the opinion that NA was the wrong man for his job because of his personality, nor do I criticize NASA for not specifically choosing a more outgoing astronaut to be the commander of a potential lunar landing. As outlined above, I think Neil was the right man for the job. I have no doubt that a Lovell, Conrad, Borman, etc.. could have also done the job, none at all. The question is how they would have handled fame and pressures that came afterward. It's easy to say now, looking back from a distance of 40 years, that they could have done as well as Neil, but it's all just speculation. As many of you have described in your encounters with him, he's constantly surrounded by a crush of people at any event he attends, each one wanting a moment of his time. I'm not saying that Armstrong is the only one that could have handled this, just that we don't know definitively that anyone else could have and still maintained his reputation for integrity.

posted 07-24-2008 12:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
The question is how they [the other astronauts, not NA] would have handled fame and pressures that came afterward. It's easy to say now, looking back from a distance of 40 years, that they could have done as well as Neil, but it's all just speculation.

---

What's easy is posting speculative praise with faint damns of (take your pick) Lovell or Conrad or Aldrin et al. from a distance of 40 years.

You're essentially arguing that only one guy, Neil Armstrong, had integrity and character, or rather, sufficient integrity and character, to bear up under the klieg lights of First Mandom. I venture to say NA himself would take issue with you--unless of course you're NA posting, in which case, carry on, Neil!

Anyway, my point is: Isn't this bold assertion of yours just as speculative as rather more generous claims to the contrary?

posted 07-24-2008 04:56 PM            

I know I didn't say and I don't think I implied that NA was the only one who had/has integrity. I also didn't say, nor did I imply, that he was the only one who could complete the mission and then handle the subsequent fame with dignity. What I said was that it is easy to claim that someone else could have done the job better (you know, the grass is always greener argument) from the perspective of hindsight. I have no personal experience with this, but several people obviously have witnessed the crushes of people that surround NA at the various events he attends. This comes with the territory of being First Man. I am in no way disputing the decency, character and integrity of a man like Jim Lovell (I'll use him as an example). I would love to meet him in person because not only do I think he's a hero, but I think (from what I can tell) he's a wonderful man and an absolute gentleman. All I am saying is that, no matter how kind, gracious and outgoing someone is, the burdens of this type of incredible fame are difficult to deal with. I expect that Jim Lovell would have dealt with this just fine and he would have been an absolutely great First Man. Since history wasn't written that way, it's moot.....at least for me. On the other hand, it's the nature of people (and certainly people on message boards) to wonder "what if..." and that's fine. It makes for interesting discussion.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm not fascinated by NA. We all have our favorites and as I posted on another thread, he probably is mine in part because I am a similar type personality. I can identify more with him than, say, a more gregarious type like a Pete Conrad (who I don't know much about). That doesn't mean I don't greatly admire the other astronauts - from what little I know of them, I think they are to a man, absolutely terrific. I think I adore Alan Bean, for one.

posted 07-24-2008 05:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
This comes with the territory of being First Man.

---

I've been at events where people have thronged to the blue flight suited guy in the corner without even knowing who he was (as evident by the inevitable question, "Do you know which one he is?"). Likewise, I have been to events where Armstrong wasn't even the most popular astronaut in the room (much to even my surprise).

It all depends on the circumstances of the event and how obvious the astronaut in question wants to be (or is) identified. I'm fairly certain that Neil Armstrong could walk down the streets of New York and not be stopped once, but put Hoot Gibson (for example) in a patch-adorned flight suit and shine a spotlight on him in Times Square, and he'll draw a bigger crowd than the Naked Cowboy.

posted 07-25-2008 10:49 AM               

Misunderstandings are inevitable on message boards, and I think you'll find that on cS they're smoothed over with uncommon amity. But the boards do give rise to what you call "long debates" because that's the nature of the beast and (by extension) the nature of the limits of communication--even in the hands of the most gifted and careful writers.

So, sometimes, even though most of us know what we meant to say in a comment on a thread, we rarely have control over what others believe--and believe in good faith--the comment said or implied. This mismatch creates conflict that is generally resolved with well-meaning inquiry and even challenge.

For example, you'll find that a lot of cS commenters, well armed with a distinct pov in addition to facts and experience and judgment, might challenge the logic of another's premise or assertion of fact. They don't do so, necessarily, because they have a mere opinion or an attitude. They usually engage because they're genuinely curious about space history and are pushing for new insights and knowledge. Or they don't follow the logic of an argument.

So I'm sometimes leery when commenters seek to dismiss legitimate debate--in a thread that they themselves initiated--by employing thought-terminating cliches (for example, "We'll have to agree to disagree." or "That's your opinion." "Let's not beat a dead horse."). What if the horse isn't dead and the vet needs to be called? What if it isn't opinion, but a matter of logic or fact?

Better, I think, on intellectually honest message boards, for everyone to try to counter challenges with a better argument or superior logic and facts.

posted 07-25-2008 06:21 PM            

Every point you made in your post is a good one. The reason why I tend to say "we'll just have to agree to disagree" (talk about cliche!) is because I always worry about how I appear. I don't want to come off as stubborn or foolish, or both. Therefore, I end the debate before I put my foot in my mouth, lol. Seriously, I really should have no worries on this board because in the very short time I've lurked, I have noticed (and I told Robert this) that this is the politest message board I've ever seen. I've gone back and read old threads and I don't believe I have seen one thread where people are insulting each other. That is extremely rare, as I'm sure you know.

I admit I got frustrated the other day, but it was at myself for not making myself clear. As you say, these things happen on message boards - as they do even when speaking to someone face to face.

As someone who is an English major and loves the written word, I certainly do not want to stand in the way of a good debate...especially since that is what these boards are for!