# Buzz "Anything for a Buck" Aldrin



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins don't put their names on anything and don't do many interviews. Seems Aldrin puts his name on anything and interviews for anyone. 

http://www.revell.com/catalog/products/buzz_aldrin_rocket_hero.html


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

Well, that is his perogative.

It's funny, though. I have personal autographs from both Armstrong and Collins, but not from Aldrin.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

NTRPRZ said:


> Well, that is his perogative.
> 
> It's funny, though. I have personal autographs from both Armstrong and Collins, but not from Aldrin.


He does book signings all the time and gives his autograph freely.


----------



## alex1485 (Feb 13, 2009)

as long as he does it in a positive way, all for him (which I think he does). He did accomplish a lot.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Not seein' a problem here.

I'm sure Revell went to _him_, I bet he didn't call Revell and tell them to put his name on a product.

If any person deserves recognition, it's an Apollo astronaut.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

My only point is Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins keep a low profile not making a profit at every turn for their accomplishments. I'm sure Revell went after all three with Aldrin being the only one who accepted. Aldrin is a self-serving narcissist, although a good astronaut.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

Long time lurker making a quick post.

There are a significant number of people who believe that Neil Armstrong let the space program down with his silence. Other astronauts, including Buzz Aldrin among them, have said that Neil Armstrong would have been the single most powerful and influential voice for the promotion of space exploration. Armstrong was the one great name that could have sold space exploration to an ever tight-fisted taxpayer. His power to move a population and a government in favor of space exploration (especially manned space exploration) will never be equaled.

Rather than become a a proponent of space exploration after becoming an international hero, Armstrong abandoned the space program and those who put him on the moon. He got his piece of the pie and, after July of 1969, his view was "everyman for himself". He was the first man on the moon and he showed no interest in what or who came after him.

Thank God we have a few guys like Buzz Aldrin and Gene Cernan out beating the bushes to keep the space program alive in the public consciousness. If it wasn't for a handful of these former astronauts, the legacy of the moon missions would be lost on public to young to remember them.

Buzz Aldrin is doing manned spaceflight a great service.

Neil Armstrong may not think he "owes" us anything. He did his job. He was a fantastic pilot. But after we spent a few billion dollars to send him to the moon, give him the greatest honor in recorded history and make him the most famous man in the world, his attitude was, "Thanks for ride, boys. so long and good luck. I'm outta here."

Thanks Neil. You're welcome.


----------



## bert model maker (Feb 19, 2002)

Buzz Aldrin is at least keeping in touch. neil Armstrong will never sign anything again. they sell litographs of all moonwalkers & all signed except neil armstrong & they still want almost $4,000.00 for it. If you have something that has neil & mike collins autograph, you can forget buzz from ever signing it. They will not let anything exist that has all 3 signed names. being the 1st human on the moon must have really got into neils head and changed him forever & i bet he was never the same again. I wonder if he builds models ? I wonder what thoughts or writings he left on the moons surface ?


----------



## aric (Jun 23, 2009)

I have no problem with him doing it at all.


----------



## Parts Pit Mike (Jan 3, 2001)

Zike! Very well said!!

Good going Buzz!


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Antimatter said:


> My only point is Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins keep a low profile not making a profit at every turn for their accomplishments. I'm sure Revell went after all three with Aldrin being the only one who accepted. Aldrin is a self-serving narcissist, although a good astronaut.


I disagree, Having met and talked to him several times I dont see this aspect of him. He was my childhood hero.


----------



## iamweasel (Aug 14, 2000)

Antimatter said:


> Aldrin is a self-serving narcissist.


Doubt he beats John Glenn in that department. No idea how Glenn is in public because I have never seen him out that situation but when he's not in public....*sigh*


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

This seems to be a rather extreme overreaction to a series of model kits with a guy's name on them for marketing purposes.

Was Chuck Yeager equally criticized when Revell released a series of airplane models with his name on the packaging?

Is Catherine Zeta-Jones to be reviled for appearing in T-Mobile ads?

I don't get the venom.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

Armstrong's reticence to sign autographs has nothing to do with selfishness or lack of caring, and in fact he *did* sign them for years. When it reached a point where everytime he went anywhere and was mobbed by autograph seekers only to find that their "trophies" were being sold for ridiculous sums of money, he drew the line.

Armstrong did *not* bail on NASA in the manner zike would have you believe. He very much wanted to stay active as an astronaut but in 1971 was told he'd never fly again because the agency wasn't about to risk a national hero in light of what happened to Yuri Gagarin 3 years previously. He *did *continue to work for the US Government in several capacities until he retired from public life to become a professor at Bowling Green, where my step-brother studied under him for 2 semesters and found him to be very focused, humorous and an excellent teacher. The occassions he would discuss Apollo 11 were few, but when he opened up, he was very engaging and forthcoming.

Neil has told his story countless times, hosted series on aviation and spaceflight, contributed to many spaceflight anthologies, co-chaired the Challenger investagation and shed some light on his personal life in an outstanding autobiography. Neil has served his country with honor for more than 40 years. Giving in to the demands that have been placed on him since 1969 would've made him appear to be the shill Buzz is accused of being and in my estimation, cheapened his currency as a spokesman for space exploration. What more do you want of him?

As for Buzz, he's had his issues over the years, but in my mind, it's only made him seem more like the rest of us. Yes, he suffered from alcoholism, depression and low self esteem, but "Dr. Rendesvous" also honed the orbital mechanics techniques that made the whole Apollo effort possible. And if you're old enough to remember the Gemini spacewalkers' difficulties, you'd also be aware that until Buzz came up with the neutral boyancy training for his effort on Gemini 12, it didn't appear likely that the problems with EVA would ever be overcome. Having proven that the idea was sound, there hasn't been an unsuccessful EVA since.

Buzz has bared his soul regarding his personal life and astronaut career for those who care to know since he came home from the moon. He also hilariously punched the lights out of Bart Siebrel for accusing NASA of faking the moon landings. He has staunchly promoted & defended his country *AND* NASA longer than some you have been alive. Now you wanna give him some heat for doing the kind of things you're pissed that Armstrong *won't*? 

I doubt anyone here could've adjusted to, or handled the notoriety and invasion of privacy any better than these guys have for 4 decades. I think we can afford to cut them some slack...


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

flyingfrets said:


> Armstrong's reticence to sign autographs has nothing to do with selfishness or lack of caring, and in fact he *did* sign them for years. When it reached a point where everytime he went anywhere and was mobbed by autograph seekers only to find that their "trophies" were being sold for ridiculous sums of money, he drew the line.
> 
> Armstrong did *not* bail on NASA in the manner zike would have you believe. He very much wanted to stay active as an astronaut but in 1971 was told he'd never fly again because the agency wasn't about to risk a national hero in light of what happened to Yuri Gagarin 3 years previously. He *did *continue to work for the US Government in several capacities until he retired from public life to become a professor at Bowling Green, where my step-brother studied under him for 2 semesters and found him to be very focused, humorous and an excellent teacher. The occassions he would discuss Apollo 11 were few, but when he opened up, he was very engaging and forthcoming.
> 
> ...


Good reply. I guess I *was* harsh.


----------



## bert model maker (Feb 19, 2002)

flyingfrets said:


> Armstrong's reticence to sign autographs has nothing to do with selfishness or lack of caring, and in fact he *did* sign them for years. When it reached a point where everytime he went anywhere and was mobbed by autograph seekers only to find that their "trophies" were being sold for ridiculous sums of money, he drew the line.
> 
> Armstrong did *not* bail on NASA in the manner zike would have you believe. He very much wanted to stay active as an astronaut but in 1971 was told he'd never fly again because the agency wasn't about to risk a national hero in light of what happened to Yuri Gagarin 3 years previously. He *did *continue to work for the US Government in several capacities until he retired from public life to become a professor at Bowling Green, where my step-brother studied under him for 2 semesters and found him to be very focused, humorous and an excellent teacher. The occassions he would discuss Apollo 11 were few, but when he opened up, he was very engaging and forthcoming.
> 
> ...


Great post frets !!!


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

I salute Mr. Aldrin for his stance- especially his public visibility- keep the Apollo moon landings as in the news as long as possible. A staggering achievement not realized by the younger generation. 
Gary:hat:


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

flyingfrets said:


> Armstrong's reticence to sign autographs has nothing to do with selfishness or lack of caring, and in fact he *did* sign them for years. When it reached a point where everytime he went anywhere and was mobbed by autograph seekers only to find that their "trophies" were being sold for ridiculous sums of money, he drew the line.
> 
> Armstrong did *not* bail on NASA in the manner zike would have you believe. He very much wanted to stay active as an astronaut but in 1971 was told he'd never fly again because the agency wasn't about to risk a national hero in light of what happened to Yuri Gagarin 3 years previously. He *did *continue to work for the US Government in several capacities until he retired from public life to become a professor at Bowling Green, where my step-brother studied under him for 2 semesters and found him to be very focused, humorous and an excellent teacher. The occassions he would discuss Apollo 11 were few, but when he opened up, he was very engaging and forthcoming.
> 
> ...


Good reply Frets.

In addition, Armstrong's heroes were the pioneering aviators that got him into flying and later astronautics. One of his 'heroes' was Charles Lindberg who advised him not to sign autographs and keep the public at arms length purely for personal survival. Given that Lindberg's child was abducted and murdered in a botched blackmail incident, you can understand his stance. Neither did NASA spend billions putting HIM on the Moon. They spent the money on putting a man on the Moon, the first of whom just happened to be him. As a further comment on the autograph selling issue, a recent documentary highlighted how the guy who used to cut his hair in the town where he lives entered a business deal with an 'entrepreneur' to sell strands of his hair at 50 bucks a time. It worked out at several hundred thousand dollars per visit. Not bad for someone he thought of as a friend. Is it any wonder Armstrong struggles with trusting the public? Armstrong does support the cause of space and readily attends official functions but he's also keen that his 'fame' doesn't damage his marriage or family. These men are heroes to us because they have 'The Right Stuff' and did things we've all dreamed of doing but they're also people.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I love buzz, if fior nothing else, for punching out that "moon landing was faked" idiot who called him a liar to his face.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

John P said:


> I love buzz, if fior nothing else, for punching out that "moon landing was faked" idiot who called him a liar to his face.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrgglDVmm_g


I would have made sure I knocked him out.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

Nevermind knocking him out. Think of the embarassment...how'd you like to have to explain to your friends that you got your ass kicked by a 77 year old


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

That guy has friends?!


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

These kinds of morons are the same as the Kennedy conspiracy nuts. All mouth no brains.


----------



## ochronosis (Dec 29, 2005)

John P said:


> I love buzz, if fior nothing else, for punching out that "moon landing was faked" idiot who called him a liar to his face.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrgglDVmm_g


"Houston the Eagle has landed", one sweet left hook! ..... :lol::lol:


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

I think the 'coward' comment probably rankled more. I remember it went to court and the judge basically sided with Buzz saying the guy had it coming.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

I wonder if *these* might finally silence the doubters:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

Somehow, *I* doubt it!


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Antimatter said:


> These kinds of morons are the same as the Kennedy conspiracy nuts. All mouth no brains.


 
IMHO, "All mouth and no brains" is actually a very good description of just about ALL angry, paranoid conspiracy buffs, who obviously watched too many episodes of the X-files and read too many UFO books. :freak:


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

flyingfrets said:


> I wonder if *these* might finally silence the doubters:
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
> 
> Somehow, *I* doubt it!



What's weird is we have satellites that can take a photo of a pack of cigarettes form 250 miles up, but we can't get any pictures worth a hoot of the moon landing sites.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

Antimatter said:


> What's weird is we have satellites that can take a photo of a pack of cigarettes form 250 miles up, but we can't get any pictures worth a hoot of the moon landing sites.


In fairness, the ones you're talking about are DoD satellites in low Earth orbit. Unfortunately, and especially in light of the current economy, I don't belive this nation is willing to commit those kind of resources to a satellite in lunar orbit. The technology may be classified as well, but I share your frustration.

I still think it's pretty impressive that you can see the trail of footprints Shepard and Mitchell left at Fra Mauro though.


----------



## bert model maker (Feb 19, 2002)

Your right Frets. Better pictures are coming as these were only the first pass. Apollo 12s landing site is said to be the best of all because it also shows the lunar spacecraft sitting in the crater they went to go see that landed 2 1/2 years earlier. Nothing will cast a shadow on the moon except something alien sitting on the surface.


----------



## bert model maker (Feb 19, 2002)

flyingfrets said:


> In fairness, the ones you're talking about are DoD satellites in low Earth orbit. Unfortunately, and especially in light of the current economy, I don't belive this nation is willing to commit those kind of resources to a satellite in lunar orbit. The technology may be classified as well, but I share your frustration.
> 
> I still think it's pretty impressive that you can see the trail of footprints Shepard and Mitchell left at Fra Mauro though.


They had hand cart buggies they had to puch that had big wheels on them and they did leave big wheel marks with the foorprints. take a look at Apollos 15- 17 and look for a small white rectangular spot to the side & a way from the LEM decent stage. Those are the Lunar Rover vehicles parked their & the cameras onboard the Rovers televised the acent satges as the left the moon.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

Antimatter said:


> What's weird is we have satellites that can take a photo of a pack of cigarettes form 250 miles up, but we can't get any pictures worth a hoot of the moon landing sites.


No they can't. You've been watching too many Hollywood films. Next you'll be telling us that CSI departments can read fine newsprint by enhancing fuzzy CCTV video footage taken half a mile away. Any satellite going around Earth that can resolve better than two metres square per pixel is cutting edge. Don't confuse the images on Google Earth, that are actually taken by high flying aircraft, with satellite images.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Dupe post.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

By the way, Buzz has been on tv all week. He looked good with his Hairclub for Men, $2000 suits and the facelift.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

DX-SFX said:


> No they can't. You've been watching too many Hollywood films. Next you'll be telling us that CSI departments can read fine newsprint by enhancing fuzzy CCTV video footage taken half a mile away. Any satellite going around Earth that can resolve better than two metres square per pixel is cutting edge. Don't confuse the images on Google Earth, that are actually taken by high flying aircraft, with satellite images.


The resolution capabilities of current U.S. spy satellites is believed to be around 10 centimeters. Seems you're 10 years behind. So yes they can.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Regarding Armstrong and Aldrin, I'd leave them be. They weren't sent to the moon as a personal favor -- it was an honor, but it was a risky, difficult job. They owe "the public" nothing more than they're already given, in my opinion.

... and regarding what happened after the mission, _you_ go to the moon and see if it doesn't change you.


----------



## bert model maker (Feb 19, 2002)

I think it changed them all, some more than others. Jim Irwin from Apollo 15 found that he must try & find noahs ark and spent many years before his death documenting his search. Gene Cernan said that when he looks up at the Moon, he sees it now completly different than he did before his mission, he lived & worked there for 3 days and he said that you cannot know how it feels to see the moon differently now, unless you were on the moon.Yeah, It would change me forever, I can tell you that !
Bert


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

SteveR said:


> Regarding Armstrong and Aldrin, I'd leave them be. They weren't sent to the moon as a personal favor -- it was an honor, but it was a risky, difficult job. They owe "the public" nothing more than they're already given, in my opinion.
> 
> ... and regarding what happened after the mission, _you_ go to the moon and see if it doesn't change you.


They owe Canucks nothing, that's for sure.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

Antimatter said:


> They owe Canucks nothing, that's for sure.


Apparently "For All Mankind" escapes you?


----------



## alex1485 (Feb 13, 2009)

what if hes a woman? lol


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

flyingfrets said:


> Apparently "For All Mankind" escapes you?


What was left out of the audio was, "for all mankind, except Canada".


----------



## Rattrap (Feb 23, 1999)

What's really sad is that the Neil Armstrong Air and Space Museum in Wapokeneta, Ohio is getting ready to close its doors due to loss of government grants and low attendance. Okay, it's not the National Air and Space Museum, but it's still pretty nice. Good exhibits, neat architecture, good location (about halfway between Dayton and Akron). They even have the plane Neil learned to fly in on exhibit.

It's going to be a real shame if we lose all that. I wish I could have gone up this summer, but finances were just too tight.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

Antimatter said:


> The resolution capabilities of current U.S. spy satellites is believed to be around 10 centimeters. Seems you're 10 years behind. So yes they can.


And if it were 10 cm (4"), your cigarette pack would be a pixel and still couldn't be read. A man's arm would be barely 7 pixels.

Here's a picture with a resolution of 10cm shot at close range and not through a dirty atmosphere. That's a waist to head shot. Who's the mystery person and what are they holding?










I submit that Hollywood's depiction of what satellites can do and your belief in the degree of their snooping abilities, even based on your improved example is, at best, wildly optimistic so, no they can't. Even quadrupling the resolution, you'd struggle.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

DX-SFX said:


> And if it were 10 cm (4"), your cigarette pack would be a pixel and still couldn't be read. A man's arm would be barely 7 pixels.
> 
> Here's a picture with a resolution of 10cm shot at close range and not through a dirty atmosphere. That's a waist to head shot. Who's the mystery person and what are they holding?
> 
> ...


According to an estimate by the private Federation of American Scientists (FAS), three satellites operated by the US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) have resolutions as sharp as 10 centimeters (3.93 inches) -- in other words, the satellites can discern a softball-sized object from several hundred miles away. The best resolution of an American spy satellite, achieved by an older series *no longer in use*, was reputed to be about 2 1/2 inches.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

OK, maybe I'm out of date and maybe resolution has improved but it doesn't change the fact that they may be able to see a softball size object but not see that it is a softball. It's just a white pixel. In the same way, they may see an object is in someone's hand (if the colour contrast is high enough) but can't see what the object is. They don't have the resolution. If you want, I'll double the resolution of the photo I posted making each pixel represent 2" across, smaller than you quote, and you still won't be any the wiser who it is. For looking at large objects they're great, and they can look using wavelengths outside the optical and based on heat, but the resolution is still not enough to even read a car number plate. The higher the resolution, the smaller the light collecting cells of the photo receiving chip and the bigger the reflecting mirror part of the satellite has to be to collect enough light. Digital cameras are limited by the same rules. If the light being collected by each photoreceptor is less, you either use a bigger primary lens element (the equivalent of lens aperture) or turn up the gain signal strength. The latter introduces 'noise' which degrades the pictures which is why when you turn up the ISO rating on a digital camera to shoot something in low light, the picture appears grainier than low ISO settings not unlike the higher ISO film emulsions.

Here's a test. Go and photograph a newspaper from six feet away with a good digital camera. Look at the picture on your screen and zoom in. There comes a point when the type face is so small, it just appears as a series of pixels and is quite unreadable. It's the same with satellites reading car number plates. There is a minimum resolution before you can recognise what an object is. Your picture will obviously be a newspaper when zoomed out which equates to being able to recognise a large object like a car when viewed wide but when you zoom in, you can't make out any detail. Is that furry dice hanging from the rear view mirror or a parking ticket or a packet of cigarettes or a softball?


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

My only point was that if a spy type satellite were in moon orbit, with no atmosphere, the LEM's would be easy to take pictures of in close up. I'm sure that day will come.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

I agree. The technology will continue to improve.

I think it must be quite nostalgic for the astronauts who landed to see those photos, a bit like revisting your old school. It must reaffirm in their mind events that probably feel more like a dream with advancing age because they were so long ago. Almost like revisiting a sunken shipwreck unseen for forty years.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

If you wanted some attention, you sure got it!


----------

