.
Feedback

How Will You Remember Neil Armstrong?

On July 20, 1969, Armstrong and his partner Buzz Aldrin made history as the first people to ever walk on the moon, and Long Island played a huge role in that.

Americans everywhere were saddened this weekend following news that Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong died Saturday as a result of complications following cardiac bypass surgery. He was 82.

On July 20, 1969, Armstrong and his partner Buzz Aldrin made history as the first people to ever walk on the moon. It was a historic event that had particular impact on Long Island since the very lunar lander that shuttled the astronauts to the moon was made on Long Island during the height of Bethpage-based aviation company Grumman's tenure in the region. Thousands of Long Islanders played a role in building the lander that Armstrong exited before uttering his famous line: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

If you were touched by the lunar mission, share your thoughts in the comment stream. And be sure to let us know if you worked at Grumman when the company was building the landers.

The following obituary for Armstrong was posted on Guardian.com:

The US astronaut Neil Armstrong secured his place in history on 20 July 1969, when, as commander of the Apollo 11 spacecraft, he was the first man to set foot on the moon, and made his famous statement: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Armstrong, who has died aged 82, was accompanied on that epic journey by Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, the pilot of the lunar landing module with the call sign Eagle, and Michael Collins, pilot of the command module with the call sign Columbia.

The crew of Apollo 11 were not chosen for the mission because they were in any way special among the elite group of test pilots who comprised the corps of American astronauts: it was simply their turn on the flight roster. If an earlier plan had succeeded, the crew of Apollo 10 would have made the first moon walk in May 1969, but because of delays in the development of the lunar module that mission became a full dress rehearsal for a lunar landing, all bar a touchdown.

Armstrong cut his teeth as an astronaut in March 1966 as commander of the Gemini 8. The mission also involved the first serious space emergency, highlighting the dangers of manned space launches when the public were beginning to take their seemingly effortless success for granted. The Gemini 8 mission was designed to perform the first docking in space by astronauts. The Soviet Union had already demonstrated automated docking of two unmanned vehicles in orbit. Armstrong and his crewmate, David Scott, were to rendezvous with a 7,000lb Agena rocket target vehicle.

They found the Agena and docked successfully, but when they tried a pre-arranged manoeuvre of the combined spacecraft it went into a spin. Armstrong disengaged from the Agena, thinking the problem was there, but the tumbling worsened. The Agena steadied but the Gemini capsule kept turning at 360 degrees a second and was in danger of colliding with the Agena.

The fault was clearly on Gemini. It was discovered later that one of 16 Gemini thruster rockets was stuck. As he was unable to stop the spacecraft turning with the main thrusters, Armstrong shut them down and brought the Gemini craft under control using a second set of 16 thrusters that were intended only to control the capsule's re-entry in to the Earth's atmosphere.

Mission Control ordered Armstrong and Scott to cut the flight short and they splashed down in a contingency recovery area in the Pacific Ocean. The drama of surviving man's first space emergency completely obscured the fact that it was on the Gemini 8 mission that the US had overtaken the Soviet Union in space technology.

Armstrong was born in Wapakoneta, Ohio, and from a young age was fascinated with aviation, experimenting with model airplanes and a home-built wind tunnel. At 15 he began flying lessons in an Aeronca Champion, and by 16 acquired his student pilot's licence. In 1947, he enrolled at Purdue University on a Navy scholarship to pursue a degree in aeronautical engineering, but in 1949 the Navy called him to active duty in the Korean War. As a navy pilot, he flew 78 combat missions. He was shot down once and received three medals for his military service. In 1952 he returned to his studies and completed his BSc at Purdue and an MSc in aerospace engineering at the University of Southern California.

In 1955 he became a civilian research pilot at the Lewis research centre of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (Naca), the forerunner of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa). Later that year, he transferred to Naca's high-speed flight station (today, Nasa's Dryden flight research centre) at Edwards Air Force Base in California as an aeronautical research scientist, and then as a pilot. He was a test pilot on many pioneering high-speed aircraft, including the 4,000mph X-15. He flew over 200 different models of aircraft, including jets, rockets, helicopters and gliders.

Armstrong was engaged in both piloting and engineering aspects of the X-15 programme from its inception. He completed the first flight in the aircraft equipped with a new self-adaptive flight control system and made seven flights in the rocket plane. In 1962 he was of the nine test pilots chosen by Nasa for its second astronaut-training programme.

Four years later Armstrong made his successful recovery of the Gemini 8 spacecraft in a situation that, if misjudged, could easily have resulted in the death of the crew. That achievement was also invaluable in helping Nasa meet the target set in May 1961 by President John F Kennedy for the USA to establish, as a national goal, a manned landing on the moon by the end of the decade.

The choice among competing techniques for achieving a moon landing still needed some intensive research and development. The method ultimately employed, of a lunar-orbit rendezvous, was influenced strongly by the experience with Gemini 8, and there was an element of poetic justice in Armstrong being at the helm again for the first manned lunar landing attempt.

On 16 July 1969, Apollo 11 blasted off for the moon. Four days later, at 4.18pm EDT (Eastern Daylight Time), the Eagle lunar lander was guided to land on a plain near the southwesten edge of the Sea of Tranquility. At 10.56pm Armstrong stepped off the ladder of the Apollo 11 lunar module and became the first human being to set foot on the moon. Twenty minutes later Buzz Aldrin joined him for two hours of ceremonies and moon-rock collecting. They unveiled a plaque and read the text to a worldwide TV audience, "Here men from the planet earth first set foot on the moon July 1969 AD. We came in peace for all mankind."

After raising the American flag and talking to President Nixon by radiotelephone, the two astronauts took numerous photographs, carried out the lunar surface experiments assigned to the mission and collected 22kg of samples of lunar soil and rocks. All the astronauts' lunar activities were televised in black-and-white. Meanwhile, Collins continued orbiting the moon alone in the Columbia command module. Armstrong and Aldrin re-entered the lunar module and closed the hatch at 1.11am on 21 July. The Eagle took off from the moon at 1.54pm, having spent 21 hours 36 minutes on the lunar surface. It docked with Columbia at 5.35pm.

After splashdown in the Pacific on 24 July, decontamination procedures began. The astronauts were carried by helicopter to the recovery ship, USS Hornet, where they entered a mobile quarantine facility to begin a period of observation under strict quarantine conditions. The command module was recovered and also removed to the quarantine facility, and the rock samples and film were flown to Houston.

Following the moon landing and the subsequent world tours by the crew of Apollo 11, Armstrong became deputy association administrator for aeronautics, Nasa headquarters office of advanced research and technology from 1969 to 1971, when he resigned. For the next eight years he was professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Cincinnati. Numerous industrial appointments followed, including New York's AIL Systems, where he was chairman from 1981 until 2001. In 1979 he was chairman of the board of Ohio's Cardwell International; from 1982 to 1992 chairman of Computing Technologies for Aviation, in Virginia.

In 1985-86 he served on the National Commission on Space, a presidential committee to develop goals for a national space programme into the 21st century; and was also vice-chairman of the committee investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986. During the early 1990s he presented an aviation documentary series for television entitled First Flights. Earlier this year he spoke at an event to mark the 50th anniversary of the orbiting of the Earth by the first American to do so, John Glenn.

Armstrong is survived by his second wife, Carol, and two sons from his first marriage, which ended in divorce.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Commack Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
LaJa May 21, 2013 at 10:58 am
TaxPac and we know it
Dawn-Marie Bailey May 21, 2013 at 10:55 am
Now, this morning, I hear that the PTA is telling people that they are opposed to Proposition 2 inRead More order to keep "special interest groups" from taking over. How can parents in this community, whose children are in the system, who want to make positive change for those children, be a "special interest group"? It blows my mind, how in politics, people can twist things so badly to meet their own agendas. It is all quite sad.
Dawn-Marie Bailey May 21, 2013 at 08:18 am
Last night, I had quite the email exchange with members of the PTA Executive Committee. Not onlyRead More could they NOT provide me with an answer as to why they've chosen not to support Proposition 2, all I received was snide remarks and avoidance. Not smart or professional at all. In fact, they seem like quite the joke. I guess they are more of a social club who makes decisions about an important vote without doing their homework and then pushes that decision on the community (via street signs and phone calls to parents). I believe the public deserves a valid answer as to why they've taken their position. Unfortunately, they can't provide one. It makes me ponder if I should even bother to support the PTA in the future (as I have in the past with both my time and money). They certainly don't seem to be making decisions in the best interest of our children. It is all quite sad.
Dawn-Marie Bailey May 21, 2013 at 10:53 am
Last night, I had quite the email exchange with members of the PTA Executive Committee. Not onlyRead More could they NOT provide me with an answer as to why they've chosen not to support Proposition 2, all I received was snide remarks and avoidance. Not smart or professional at all. In fact, they seem like quite the joke. I guess they are more of a social club who makes decisions about an important vote without doing their homework and then pushes that decision on the community (via street signs and phone calls to parents). I believe the public deserves a valid answer as to why they've taken their position. Unfortunately, they can't provide one. It makes me ponder if I should even bother to support the PTA in the future (as I have in the past with both my time and money). They certainly don't seem to be making decisions in the best interest of our children. Now, this morning, I hear that the PTA is telling people that they are opposed to Proposition 2 in order to keep "special interest groups" from taking over. How can parents in this community, whose children are in the system, who want to make positive change for those children, be a "special interest group"? It blows my mind, how in politics, people can twist things so badly to meet their own agendas. It is all quite sad.
Concerned Commackian May 21, 2013 at 01:34 pm
Whatever you say LaJa......whatever you say. Where is the sneaking around? Wasnt everything doneRead More according to the law? I think your goal is sensatuionalism rather than serious debate.
LaJa May 21, 2013 at 11:12 am
By the way, I am not in any way associated or affiliated with any union... If you and your groupRead More are not affiliated with TaxPac then you should know that the platform Tampellini and Hartman support, along with the sudden urgent need for 2 more board seats, is taken straight from the TaxPac play book. You can agree with them, as that is your right BUT you must also know where their rhetoric originates and educate yourselves as to what TaxPac as a group wants here on Long Island. If the TaxPac agenda was above board and positive for LI communities there would be no need for them to sneak around and attempt to gain entry into communities through back-door maneuvers like the sudden need for 2 more seats...when Fusco couldn't get in last year either..... At least know that you are being played.
Concerned Commackian May 21, 2013 at 10:39 am
Is TAXPAC a word often used by Union Shills?
Dawn-Marie Bailey May 21, 2013 at 08:19 am
Last night, I had quite the email exchange with members of the PTA Executive Committee. Not onlyRead More could they NOT provide me with an answer as to why they've chosen not to support Proposition 2, all I received was snide remarks and avoidance. Not smart or professional at all. In fact, they seem like quite the joke. I guess they are more of a social club who makes decisions about an important vote without doing their homework and then pushes that decision on the community (via street signs and phone calls to parents). I believe the public deserves a valid answer as to why they've taken their position. Unfortunately, they can't provide one. It makes me ponder if I should even bother to support the PTA in the future (as I have in the past with both my time and money). They certainly don't seem to be making decisions in the best interest of our children. It is all quite sad.
Commackvoter May 20, 2013 at 10:24 pm
I know what the word increase means! You mentioned it above about insurance rates going up. You seeRead More when a member of the BOE gives his kid a job in the district, then that adult child (24 yrs) takes a 15 yr old student to a hotel for sex and gets arrested, then our insurance company has to pay to settle the lawsuit, dont you think our insurance rates go up John. Sure you dont believe it - Read all about it http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/cops-commack-hs-coach-faces-sex-abuse-charges-1.1711455 Time to break up this 5 member coffee clotch and their you scratch my back I will scratch yours.
John Smith May 20, 2013 at 10:12 pm
Can I ask you an honest question? I hope this doesn't sound to condescending because I really amRead More curious. Do you understand what the word "increase" means?
Judge for your yourself whether these signatures were written by the same person
MJS May 21, 2013 at 05:30 am
JSMITH - I have no desire to run for the Board b/c I for one believe you and other people like youRead More aren't worthy of people like me and others, like Mr. T and Mr. H, who want to make a difference and are willing to make the sacrifices needed to do it.. You don't deserve them..but thankfully they are more altruistic than I am so they are willing to ignore the hatred spewed by minority voices of people like yourself who try to keep the status quo and preserve their self-interested agenda.
GM May 20, 2013 at 10:30 pm
It's always interesting to watch the fear in the faces of this Board and its operatives when theyRead More are opposed. At present, the power is with too few people and perhaps the community will agree it's time to balance the power by voting YES for Prop 2. Why would a democracy vote down more representation? We fight for more representation in congress so why does the same argument not apply here.
John Smith May 20, 2013 at 10:15 pm
MJS - that I agree with you on. There are definitely people just waiting to see if Prop 2 passesRead More and are prepared to run. You and your Tax Pac buddies - they want to get 4 seats (including Tampellini & Hartman) so they can run us into the land of 7% tax levy increases like Baldwin and Sachem with their poorly thought out short term solutions! Thanks for helping to make that clear. I appreciate the help.
Concerned Commackian May 20, 2013 at 03:45 pm
Im concerned with the rate of spending increases. You cant talk your way around them no matter howRead More hard you try. And as to this "district has no control" argument, thats a cop out and you know it. While the state tells the district what percentage of salary it must pay into the retirement system, if the district had done a more effective job of limiting the growth in compensation, not only would salary expense been lower, but the amount paid into the retirement system would have been lower as well. And John, care to calculate how much the additional state aid to the district this year lowered the levy? Im sure you dont.
John Smith May 20, 2013 at 02:19 pm
Or you could think about how spending is going up over 4% (the majority of which is fueled by costsRead More that are mandated by law -- Teachers' and Employee's Retirement and Insurance contributions -- over which the School District has no control), but the tax levy is only going up 2.91%, which means the School District -- gasp -- might be doing a good job finding alternative sources of funding other than the taxpayers. Again, look at the info for yourself, not through the eyes of a biased Tampellini/Hartman/Tax Pac supporter.
LaJa May 21, 2013 at 10:41 am
Perhaps you can double down your efforts in Lisa Levine's current town of residence. See how thingsRead More work out there for about 5-7 years. Send us a report and we will take it under advisement. Communities working together!
LaJa May 21, 2013 at 10:38 am
As usual the TaxPac group resorts to name-calling and bullying. Much like the school yard loud mouthRead More who simply could not get the other kids to agree with him. Must be getting increasingly frustrating to all of you. Year after year you try to break onto our community intent on doing damage and year after year you are turned away at the gates. Perhaps it's time to pack up and retreat.
TheRube43 May 21, 2013 at 08:53 am
Something jumps out at me. "We don't want to spend down our unrestricted reserves or we willRead More be like Sachem. But if the district doesn't over budget line items then they have no choice but to spend those reserves. Things happen during a school year - whether it is a special ed student moving in or a superstorm causing all sort of havoc. So the district has to overbudget so they have enough for those contingincies.". We have a contingency fund for emergencies. Things DO happen. We spend from the contingency fund. Next budget, we replenish the fund. We never let the fund diminish past the year it was tapped. Overbudgeting for "more emergencies" seems wasteful. People would understand if there was a budget increase due to a catastrophic emergency - enough to cover the dip into the contingency fund. And where is it spelled out what's "budget" and what's "overbudget" for each line item?? I'm not trying to be snarky - I'm just trying to get a handle on things.
Dawn-Marie Bailey May 21, 2013 at 10:54 am
Now, this morning, I hear that the PTA is telling people that they are opposed to Proposition 2 inRead More order to keep "special interest groups" from taking over. How can parents in this community, whose children are in the system, who want to make positive change for those children, be a "special interest group"? It blows my mind, how in politics, people can twist things so badly to meet their own agendas. It is all quite sad.
Dawn-Marie Bailey May 21, 2013 at 08:20 am
Last night, I had quite the email exchange with members of the PTA Executive Committee. Not onlyRead More could they NOT provide me with an answer as to why they've chosen not to support Proposition 2, all I received was snide remarks and avoidance. Not smart or professional at all. In fact, they seem like quite the joke. I guess they are more of a social club who makes decisions about an important vote without doing their homework and then pushes that decision on the community (via street signs and phone calls to parents). I believe the public deserves a valid answer as to why they've taken their position. Unfortunately, they can't provide one. It makes me ponder if I should even bother to support the PTA in the future (as I have in the past with both my time and money). They certainly don't seem to be making decisions in the best interest of our children. It is all quite sad.
Commackvoter May 19, 2013 at 11:28 am
Yes John Smith, agree that the PTA SHOULD have video taped and posted it somewhere for the communityRead More to view. This is the 21st century and there is no excuse for them not offering this for those who could not attend. Same goes for the CUFSD but at least the law prohibits them from banning taping public meetings.
MJS May 19, 2013 at 10:29 am
It will be interesting to see what Mr. Behar does if he loses, since he is totally opposed to PropRead More 2. So if Prop 2 passes, and he chooses to take advantage of it and run again then in my eyes, and those of the Community, he will reveal himself to be a total Hypocrite. The same would go for Egan, since he too opposes Prop 2.
Retired May 19, 2013 at 09:52 am
@RL - I agree with term limits, but the law says that can only be proposed by the Board. The publicRead More cannot submit such a proposition. The board, at least the current one, will never agree to that b/c they want to keep themselves in power at any cost. By adding 2 new people Prop 2 may a provide an opportunity to have people on aboard that will consider proposing term limits, as well as other changes. So, yet another reason to Vote YES to Prop 2.
RL May 17, 2013 at 08:08 am
I agree new blood can be used and some new thinking and the way to accomplish that is to vote newRead More faces in. Does having more people create a larger bureaucracy thought. Having served on a number of private, charity and corporate boards I can tell you more is not always the answer. I think term limits would be a better approach. This way you don't have the same though process year after year. Two terms six years seems reasonably to me.