posted 07-20-2008 10:36 PM            

This doesn't ring true to me given everything I've read about this. From what I understand, this decision wasn't Neil's to make. Clearly, I don't think NA (or any astronaut for that matter) would turn down the chance to be the first man out if the opportunity were there, but that's different than just deciding "hey, I'm the commander and despite the previous procedures that had the lunar module pilot leaving first, I'm going to do it differently".

posted 07-21-2008 11:48 AM               

...I told Buzz I thought it should be Neil on seniority. I felt pretty strongly that the ones who had been with the program the longest deserved first crack at the goodies. Had Gus been alive, as a Mercury astronaut he would have taken the step. Neil had come into the program in 1962, a year ahead of Buzz, so he had first choice.

There was also a technical reason. It turns out that the lunar module was configured differently than the Gemini, in which you had two equally usable hatches. There was just the one hatch on the front of the lunar module, and the way it opened made it easier for the guy on the left, the commander to get out first. Otherwise, you'd have two guys in bulky pressure suits doing some kind of goddamn dance inside the lunar module.

But we're still left with the logistics of getting out and beyond all the other claims and questions, it is the one detail that can be easily verified. And as Grumman had no way of knowing who was going to be commander when they designed the hatch, it places the decision back to chance.

posted 07-21-2008 12:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
I discovered a passage from Michael Collins' book, Carrying the Fire, which states that NA "exercised his commander's prerogative" in choosing to be the first onto the Moon.

This doesn't ring true to me given everything I've read about this....Did Michael Collins just get it wrong? .... It just seems to completely contradict everything we know about that situation.

---

posted 07-21-2008 05:44 PM            

The blog that paraphrased Collins may have gotten it wrong as here is another version:

Collins, the most easygoing and personable of the three, describes in his book Carrying the Fire. Aldrin was drinking scotch and complaining loudly about Armstrong's having crashed and burned, figuratively, earlier that day during a simulation — a kind of dress rehearsal for the lunar landing. Armstrong, "in his pajamas, tousle-haired and coldly indignant," confronted Aldrin. Collins speculates that what really triggered the fight was Aldrin's pique over Armstrong's exercising "his commander's prerogative to crawl out first" on the moon. But Armstrong, years later, during one of the obligatory Apollo anniversary press briefings for NASA, told reporters flatly that, whatever his crew mates might think, he had "zero input, no input whatever, into that decision."

I think Buzz is a good guy, and all that happened 40 years ago, so it's in the past, but he sure had his issues.

Robert, thanks for the correction. It was Kraft, not Kranz. According to First Man:

"Slayton, in particular, wanted the decision explained in technical terms. 'That was Deke', Kraft explains. 'He didn't want to be known as the guy that had made the decision that Buzz was not going to do it and Neil was'".

"My opinion is, they were looking for technical reasons because they didn't want to say directly to Buzz or anyone else that "we just want Neil to go out first."

posted 07-21-2008 07:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...if you accept that Kraft and Low were as passionate as to advocate for Neil Armstrong based on their perception of the legacy he would fulfill, then their actions can be seen as no less or more undignified than Buzz Aldrin expressing a similar interest.

---

posted 07-21-2008 08:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
However, Buzz running about the Astronaut Office, bugging his colleagues is.

---

I don't know about others, but in the offices I have worked in, people talk to each other, especially when trying to affect change. And as Tom pointed out, it wasn't like the outcome wasn't going to possibly impact their missions, too.

Thus, I find it hard to fault Aldrin for consulting with his fellow astronauts. Were I in his shoes, I might have done the same thing.

posted 07-21-2008 10:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
I'm extremely new to this board and I don't wish to antagonize anyone over a relatively unimportant matter...

---

posted 07-22-2008 07:27 AM               

Now as to the subject at hand I rely on two statements made by men who new both Armstrong and Aldrin well.

I his book "Carrying the Fire" Mike Collins stated that in his opinion Buzz resented not being first more than he appreciated being second.

At the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11 during a media event held at the Apollo Saturn V Center at KSC Gene Cernan stated that there couldn't have been a finer first man on the Moon then Neil Armstrong. (Note, neither statement is an exact quote.) I agree with both men.

As Robert correctly pointed out the Astronaut Offce was filled with highly competitive personalities. Any one of them would have stepped on or over the other for an assignment. Some handled the office politics better than others. There are no good guys versus bad guys. It's jut the way it was and maybe still is. Case in point Pete Conrad pushing his way to the front of the line to command the first Skylab mission. I mean he had just walked on the Moon! You and I might think it as a perfect way to cap a career. Schweickart and Cunningham had been working in the AAP office for a longer time and lost out. (I don't include Al Bean in this as he had already been working on AAP when Conrad picked him to replace CC Williams.)

Second case in point: Frank Culbertson was in management overseeing the Shuttle-Mir Program. Ken Bowersox who had backed-up Shepherd for the CDR of Expediion 1 was in line to be CDR of Expedition 3. Who flew as CDR of Expediton 3? - Frank Culbertson. Both fine men and both deserving. In fact Bowersox was CDR of Expedition 6. It's just the way it is.

So feel free to debate and remmber as one of our fellow cSer's has as his tagline, "it's only a hobby."

posted 07-22-2008 07:34 AM            

In regards to this matter: in general, I don't have a problem with people speaking up. People aren't mind-readers, so how are they going to know how you feel if you don't say something? The issue I have is that, from what I have read, Buzz' actions
rather annoyed his fellow astronauts. For whatever reason he was trying to canvas opinions from his friends (he says in First Man that he was doing it to clarify the situation, which he felt was dragging on, amongst other things), Buzz apparently came off like he was trying to undermine his commander. Whether or not he was intentionally trying to do so, I don't know, but as Michael Collins suggests in First Man, it seemed that Buzz's biggest "beef" with Neil was that Neil was going to be the first one on the Moon (and Buzz became rather withdrawn and morose after that). Clearly, Buzz wanted to be in Neil's position. I'm not arguing that he didn't have the right to want to be the first man to set foot on the moon (because anyone would have wanted that), but just the way he went about it. I readily admit that I prefer Neil's way of handling the matter - in essence, the decision was out of his hands, so he was just going to "plug along" (as Gunter Wendt is basically quoted in First Man as saying he did), concentrating on doing his job.

posted 07-22-2008 08:02 AM            

From Gemini 4 up until Apollo 9 the co-pilot went outside whilst the commander stayed inside. Even in early LEVA simulations for Apollo 11 the LMP was down as going out first.

After all the crew swaps and mission changes had been made and the crew of Apollo 11 were in line to attempt the first landing it was decided by NASA managers that Armstrong should be first out. The LM hatch was just a convenient way for Slayton to use a technical issue to stop him from being the one to deny Aldrin the first step, as Bean said the two could have swapped places before donning their PLSS's.

All Armstrong did was indicate that he wouldn't influence the decision either way but he certainly wasn't going to say anything to take him out of the running to be first.

I wonder if the decision to send the commander out first would have been made if Apollo 10, 12 or 13 had been the first landing attempt? Cernan, Bean or Haise probably wouldn't have evoked such strong feelings as Aldrin did.

As for Aldrin wanting to be first out, I find it amazing that when other astronauts turned down the chance to fly as LMP's because they wanted their own command and other astronauts used office politics and the old boy network to get flights in front of other astronauts, that Aldrin is slated for having a crack at being first.

I suppose if Armstrong had been a competitive individual like Shepard and it had been an open contest between the two of them then Aldrin wouldn't have such a bad rap for trying to be first out, unfortunately he was up against Neil Armstrong, Mr Perfect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
Also, no self-respecting astronaut would remove himself from consideration from being the first on the moon

---

posted 07-22-2008 09:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
Also, no self-respecting astronaut would remove himself from consideration from being the first on the moon

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robsouth:
So what you're basically saying there is that Aldrin is wrong for trying to be first on the moon but any other astronaut would be dumb not to.

---

posted 07-22-2008 06:01 PM            

Delta 7 explained my position exactly. There is a huge difference between wanting something (to be the first on the moon) and aggressively promoting yourself to the annoyance of your fellow astronauts.

posted 07-23-2008 06:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by RichieB16:
... If Conrad & Bean had been in the lineup to make the first landing...would the pressure have been different to make Bean the first man to walk on the moon because of Conrad's trouble making nature. Would NASA have wanted the more humble Bean to be the first man? ...

---

Conrad would have been the first one out. He had seniority, and that was more important than anything else -- barring a valid engineering reason for the decision to be otherwise.

posted 07-23-2008 02:22 PM               

I say reasonable amalgam because historical judgement works this way: readers weigh the relative value of the sources.

I'll start: On the one hand, a 30-year-old account of Apollo 11, by a thoughtful and by all accounts self-effacing Michael Collins, has the advantage of being written closer to the events in question--a good thing, as historical accounts go.

By way of contrast, in a complementary sort of way, a well-sourced official biography, like First Man, written in the 21st century by a professional historian also comes with natural and evident authority.

(Along these lines, I like to think that DEKE! was written with the same care as FIRST MAN, although it presents itself more as a memoir and seeks to preserve Deke's inimitable voice.)

Unsourced (and outsourced) memoirs written three decades after the events fall into a different and less reliable category, IMHO. Are they important for the historical record? Certainly. Bring on all the memoirs! The more memories recounted and committed to typeset pages the better!

But on the truthiness scale, they are slighter accounts--they don't carry as much value--than reputably sourced histories.

Further, and here I would quibble with the estimable taneal1 (who wrote upthread: "The difference [between Kraft-Low advocacy of NA and Buzz's self-advocacy] is that Buzz has been perceived as seeking personal gain by campaigning to be first. OTOH, Kraft and Low had no personal gain in selecting Armstrong." emphasis mine.)

Yes, Buzz would gain from a successful campaign to be First Man. But by the same token, Kraft too benefits personally, in historical luster, from casting himself as instrumental in a historic decision.

Finally, I have a bit of a beef with the black-and-white thinking in evidence here, wherein a saintly NA--anointed by far-sighted NASA higher-ups--is pitted against an inveterately ambitious, annoying, bumptious, gotta-be-first Buzz.

The black and whiteness of the face-off thus depicted, while engaging and provocative for the purposes of a cS thread, lacks historicity for one and is slightly insulting for another. Buzz is a hero too.

Forty years ago I'll guess that among the first-tier moon-bound astronauts there was no one primus inter pares. In 1966, you couldn't see NA's halo yet, and as a result, all the first-tier men jockeyed for advantage--jockeyed to be first and in the process sharpened each other and themselves.

I'll say it again, from the vantage of 2008, we can see Neil's halo. In 1967 and 1969, however, NA was just one of the best--ambitious and monomaniacal and perhaps even sharp-elbowed in his own quiet, confident, and angelic way.

posted 07-23-2008 07:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy: Hi KC
Love your post

---

posted 07-24-2008 04:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by robsouth:
From Gemini 4 up until Apollo 9 the co-pilot went outside whilst the commander stayed inside.

---

I think that's a valid point. However, there was a difference between those EVAs and the lunar EVAs. The difference is that someone was still needed to "fly" the ship while the earth-orbital EVAs took place...and that duty fell to the commanders. When the Lunar Module was on the lunar surface, there was no "flying" to take place during the EVA (other than, of course, the flying of the Command Module in lunar orbit). So that free'd up the commander to participate in the EVA for the first time in the space program.

posted 07-25-2008 06:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
Was this just conjecture on the part of some reporter? Would they/ could they have realy done this?

---

posted 07-26-2008 06:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
A more interesting question as to Buzz is whether Buzz would have been the first man had he had another commander.

---

posted 07-26-2008 06:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceCadet83:
...he continues to live in past.

---

posted 07-26-2008 07:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceCadet83:
he's never lived being the second man on the moon down and that he continues to live in past.

---

posted 08-06-2008 11:21 AM               

It's real easy to see why Aldrin's lobbying effort to be first was so annoying - because it benefited only him. The motivation was selfish. And selfish people, no matter how talented, are annoying.

I've read this and I agree with all the arguments Betsy has made.

You just know that had Buzz been the CDR and Neil the LMP - Buzz would have argued that the CDR should go first. And in that situation - can you ever imagine Neil complaining about the decision?? It just isn't in his DNA - that's what makes him so great!

I think NASA's decision was brilliant on a number of levels:

1. Neil's lack of ego and his basic humility expressed the perfect tone for the thousands of stage hands at NASA that made it all possible. He was the ultimate team player for the ultimate team.

2. In the 4 decades that have passed - Neil quiet humility has kept America's greatest achievement cloaked with a dignity that might have been lost with a different first man. Imagine had it been Pete Conrad - he would never have left our pop media culture - He'd be on TV now doing Viagra commercials.

3. The CDR should have been the first one off. Forget previous EVA protocols and spacewalks - This was THE moon. Did Columbus send his #2 guy off first to plant the flag? (maybe but that's not the image we have). Would Teddy Rosevelt have hung back in the LM? (and for all you Democrats -Try to imagine Bill Clinton staying behind!)

4. Seniority.

The technical reason given to Buzz (hatch door) was a nice excuse - something that given so as not to hurt Buzz's feelings - although IMO reasons 3 and 4 are very understood by military guys. If Deke had said "Look Buzz, Neils senior and he is the commander - he goes!" Buzz probably would have understood it more clearly and there may have been less problems. By telling Buzz it was the "the hatch door" - and obvious BS answer - it left Buzz wondering if it wasn't some character issue.

posted 08-06-2008 05:50 PM            

Jim, I happen to agree with you about the Commander being first out.....on any mission, not just the first lunar landing. I also would have to agree that had Buzz been the commander, he would have been the first out.

posted 08-06-2008 06:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
I happen to agree with you about the Commander being first out.....on any mission, not just the first lunar landing.

---

NASA had to have considered this, given the collection of a contingency lunar sample, which was solely done to protect against the situation where the EVA had to be curtailed for a quick departure.

posted 08-06-2008 06:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
Not better or worse, just different

---

It really gives you insights into his personality. He really does come across just as Chris Kraft portrayed him: "calm, quiet, no ego". I think he views himself as an engineer more than an astronaut or pilot.

I once bumped into the owner of an FBO in Minden Nevada. They run a glider operation there. Said that a few years ago a gentleman named Neil called up and scheduled a training session for a biannual review. They went flying - the man was very quiet, very much a gentleman. It wasn't until after the flight when he was filling out the paper work for "Neil" that he asked his last name. Of course it as Armstrong - they had a small chat. The instructors impression was that he was a very nice guy - totally humble - and proffessional in the air. Takes a special personality to be that way after all he has achieved.

posted 08-06-2008 07:31 PM            

Per Kraft in First Man, the hatch design "'was an engineering side to it that we hadn't considered. That was a fortuitious excercise". The remainder of the chapter goes on to explain that no one really wanted to admit the truth and that Deke, especially, wanted the explanation to Buzz to be based in technical terms.

Back to the commander issue, though - Kraft is quoted as saying that "Neil Armstrong accepted his role with neither gloating nor surprise. He was the commander, and perhaps it should always have been the commander's assignment to go first onto the moon". At least from First Man, it doesn't sound like they worried too much (if at all) about Neil being first out if there was an emergency and they had to leave quickly.