posted 08-05-2014 04:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sev8n:
Those of us who know (or are) test pilots know that checklists and procedures are to be followed to the letter, which appears to be exactly what Aldrin did.

---

Flight test has changed with the passage of nearly half a century, and anyway, Aldrin was not a tp. I used to be firmly in your camp, but having since met Aldrin several times I consider him fully capable of intentionally not taking the opportunity. That's simply my personal opinion of his character. Does that mean he did? Of course not, only he knows that.

posted 08-05-2014 07:35 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
There is no evidence to suggest that Aldrin acted in any other way but professional, so to suggest otherwise is speculation.

---

This cuts both ways Robert. As pointed out, only Aldrin knows the answer. No one is suggesting that Aldrin didn't act in a professional manner, only questioning why he did so to the exclusion of a posed photo of Armstrong on the surface given that he had the opportunity.

posted 08-05-2014 07:44 AM               

My point is that Aldrin and Armstrong had so little time on the EVA that it's easy to understand how something could have been overlooked had it not been scripted by a check list.

For those who believe that Aldrin deliberately avoided taking a photo of Armstrong, I suggest that you pull out the video and watch the entire EVA to get a feel for how busy they were.

posted 08-05-2014 08:21 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David C:
His photo of Neil in the LM is excellent and to me possibly better than an anonymous looking surface shot.

---

Aldrin's shot of Armstrong at the MESA reminds me of the photo Joe Rosenthal took of the flag raising on Iwo Jima. You can't see the faces of any of the Marines in the flag raising shot either, which is what makes it such a great shot.

posted 08-05-2014 05:57 PM               

Armstrong - "We were behind."

Aldrin - "Possibly, the original schedule hadn't included the plaque and the flag."

Armstrong - "That's true."

Aldrin - "And the Oval Office is just about to put us even further behind."

posted 08-07-2014 06:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by onesmallstep:
Oversight, yes-but no conspiracy or deliberate act.

---

posted 08-07-2014 06:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by onesmallstep:
Or is it due to Armstrong's stature since his passing, and the importance (and nostalgia) surrounding the moon landing?

---

posted 08-07-2014 08:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David C:
...it's been going for decades.

---

This myth (and in the absence of evidence it must be considered a myth) emerged decades after the first moon landing.

Case in point, it wasn't until 1986 that Aldrin's photo of Armstrong at the MESA was identified as being Armstrong. Why? Because the prevailing perception at NASA was that Aldrin never had the camera (in part due to errors in the transcript).

posted 08-08-2014 01:20 PM               

However, even well-intentioned plans not even on a prescribed EVA checklist can go wrong. Alan Bean had a timer for a camera in order to take a photo of both him and Apollo 12 Commander Pete Conrad together on the lunar surface, but could not find it in time (it was found later stuffed into one of his space suit pockets, which he then threw onto the surface). And the confusion in pictures as to who was Bean and Conrad led to the red stripes being worn by the mission Commander in subsequent Apollo flights.

It is curious, though, why no effort was made to make a posed photo of BOTH Moonwalkers on any of the flights. Which brings up an important point: Given the tight script of all the lunar EVAs (even on the later, longer stays of the J missions), the primary goal was obviously science, exploration and engineering, with photography in a supporting role documenting the geology and surroundings. If the photos captured the astronauts at work or posing with the flag, that was considered a photo to document the mission for posterity and was left to the photographer behind the lens. I'm sure on the first manned Mars flight everyone will have a camera to take a selfie or group shot when the time comes!

posted 08-08-2014 01:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by onesmallstep:
I'm sure on the first manned Mars flight everyone will have a camera to take a selfie or group shot when the time comes!

---

posted 08-09-2014 09:02 AM            

0+30 into the EVA, Armstrong was to "transfer still camera to surface" and tether it. About 5 minutes later, Aldrin was to "place spare Hasselblad camera on floor at left side of +Z hatch" before backing out of the LM hatch.

posted 08-09-2014 04:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
This myth (and in the absence of evidence it must be considered a myth) emerged decades after the first moon landing.

---

There is an equal lack of evidence to support all the theories presented here as to why Aldrin failed to take what is arguably the most important (from an historical perspective) photo of the moonwalk. No evidence whatsoever that he was conserving film, or he didn't have time, or he didn't take it because he wasn't expressly directed to in the flight plan, or he didn't think of it, or... So by your reasoning, those must be myths, as well.

The only possible evidence would be Aldrin saying it was an intentional act (or failure to act). I doubt that will ever happen.

quote:

---

Why? Because the prevailing perception at NASA was that Aldrin never had the camera (in part due to errors in the transcript).

---

posted 08-09-2014 08:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by datkatz:
...arguably the most important (from an historical perspective) photo of the moonwalk.

---

John F. Kennedy didn't challenge the nation to send Neil Armstrong to the moon. He challenged the nation to send "a man" to the moon and the photo of such was proof positive of that goal having been met.

Everything else (photo-wise) was a bonus.

quote:

---

How can that be? The boot selfie was always recognized as Aldrin's boot.

---

To quote Armstrong (from the ALSJ):

"As a matter of fact, I think a lot of them didn't know that you (Buzz) ever took pictures with the Hasselblad. I don't know why they wouldn't; because if they looked through the dialog where you made that statement (about taking the pan), NASA wouldn't have made that (mistake)."

posted 08-09-2014 10:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by datkatz:
The two moonwalkers are certainly not interchangeable.

---

The very fact that they were almost completely unrecognizable from one another once their visors were down only emphasizes that point. NASA didn't even recognize a desire — let alone a need — to tell the two apart until after the mission was over.

Had Armstrong and Aldrin been limited to taking just one photo, the priority would have been to capture a man on the moon. It didn't matter which man, only that man was there.

posted 08-09-2014 11:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Had Armstrong and Aldrin been limited to taking just one photo, the priority would have been to capture a man on the moon. It didn't matter which man, only that man was there.

---

posted 08-10-2014 01:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA didn't even recognize a desire — let alone a need — to tell the two apart until after the mission was over.

---

And therein lies the biggest failure of Apollo in the opinion of many that NASA didn't recognise the importance of keeping the public onside with more pro-active output into what they were doing.

posted 08-10-2014 03:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Maybe they should have had Aldrin get out first and stand on the footpad so he could photograph Armstrong coming down the ladder and making the first step.

---

NASA made sure that the historic first steps on the moon were transmitted, and not the (in your view just as good, and far easier to televise) second man's steps. They spared no expense and effort to do so, because the two astronauts were not interchangeable; the true historic event was Armstrong stepping off the footpad.

posted 08-10-2014 06:23 AM               

While still film/photo images are very clear and impressive, it was the live broadcast that I cared about. TV was still relatively new to the general public and by then most everyone had one. (In fact, my parents bought a small TV to have at the campground we were at so they would not miss the landing event and we went home to watch the first steps.)

At the time if you had told me the only still photos were of Aldrin it would not have phased me as the first steps were on TV as well as entire EVA, what more do you need? Also, they did a replay the next day so you know they had the complete event captured for all of history.

It is only now, in our conspiracy riddled society that we are being forced to look at an oversight as some contrived plot of revenge inside one of man's greatest adventure.

posted 08-10-2014 12:30 PM               

Of course nothing could ever beat that telecast. But it sure would be nice to have a good photo of Armstrong on the moon.

posted 08-10-2014 03:26 PM            

I vividly recall being frustrated at how long it took to depressurize "Eagle's" cabin before the astronauts were able to open the hatch. When we got TV pictures, I was horrified that the picture was upside down and very relieved when this was corrected. Finally, when Armstrong was climbing down the ladder, only his foot was initially visible silhouetted against the lunar horizon.

There had been a great deal of speculation about what Armstrong would say when he first stepped onto the Moon, so I was disappointed when he jumped off the ladder and said nothing particularly memorable. I don't remember anyone telling the TV audience that he would first jump onto the footpad, and therefore hadn't actually made his first historic step.

posted 08-10-2014 07:48 PM               

How different would it be from the shot we already have?

I think (I hope?) we can agree that the most iconic shot of an astronaut taken during the Apollo 11 mission was the photo of Aldrin standing on the moon, Armstrong reflected in his visor. So if we wanted an iconic shot of Armstrong, it would more or less that shot.

The spacesuits were nearly identical. The primary feature that distinguished Armstrong's suit from Aldrin's was a name tag, which in most reproductions of the photo is too small to read clearly anyway.

For most intents and purposes, Armstrong might as well have been photographing himself in a mirror (which, in the case of his reflection in the visor, he was).

posted 08-11-2014 02:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So how has history really been hurt by having a photograph of one spacesuit and not the other?

---

Probably not a lot, with one exception. The avid collectors of space history might disagree.

posted 08-11-2014 04:47 PM               

To emphasize that point, consider a bill (i.e. a law) signed by the President using the autopen (which is legal) and a bill signed authentically. A collector would put more value on the latter, but to the archivist, the signature is less important than the original document itself.

posted 08-28-2014 12:57 PM            

'Sure Neil, let me take the camera from you. Is here ok do you think'?

'Yes that should be fine from there Buzz with the LEM in the background'.

If you look through the mission transcript you won't find the above conversation because Armstrong never asked for his photo to be taken. The above exchange took place on every other mission. Every other commander asked for a photo to be taken. On Apollo 12 Conrad asked for two to be taken.

Why is this all on Aldrin's shoulders?

posted 08-28-2014 03:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
With the sad passing of Neil Armstrong, it occurs to me to wonder if his iconic first footprint on the Moon's surface still exists.

---

posted 09-03-2014 12:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by schnappsicle:
While I would love nothing more than to visit those sites, I'm in total agreement with preserving them.

---

With other Apollo landing sites, the scientific value of visiting might outweigh the historical value — this would be an ideal occasion to study hardware after decades spent in the lunar near vacuum, a more elaborate opportunity of what Surveyor 3 was for Apollo 12. Not EVERY site might be game; but it's quite plausible that one or more might be selected for follow up visits, striking a balance between historical preservation and scientific value.

There's also an argument for whatever eventual first lunar return mission landing near an Apollo site either to follow up on the geological value of the site, or because it's a safer, documented, known quantity. There's actually an extensive (and quite plausible) alternate history narrative authored by a couple of aerospace engineers over at the Alternative History forum called "Eyes Turned Skywards," where George Low takes over NASA in 1969 rather than Tom Paine, and opts to go forward with evolving Saturn/Apollo legacy hardware rather than the STS. The result is that NASA is in a position to return to the Moon by the end of the 90's, and ends up selecting a site in the Ocean of Storms a few miles from Apollo 12, it being a relatively "safe" flat landing site, and having scientific value not only in examining the state of the hardware left behind but also the unique selenological properties of the site (like KREEP).