Neil Armstrong’s moon-landing quote: Did he say one small step for “a” man?

“One Small Step for …” Who Now? How Journalists Decided on Neil Armstrong’s Quote.

“One Small Step for …” Who Now? How Journalists Decided on Neil Armstrong’s Quote.

The state of the universe.
Aug. 27 2012 1:20 PM

Wait, What Did Neil Armstrong Say?

How journalists interpreted the most important quote in history.

(Continued from Page 1)

A small group of us from the wire services and the major papers gathered quickly in the middle of the press room and decided the “a” was missing. It went out that way to all our readers and that is the quote everyone knows.

Later, Armstrong insisted that he knew what he was going to say before he climbed down the ladder and that he said the “a” word. But when NASA cleaned up the recording of the transmission, it was clear we were right and he was wrong. He simply forgot to say it.

Neil Armstrong footprint on the moon.
Was Neil Armstrong making "one small step for a man" or "one small step for man" on July 20, 1969?


Make no mistake, it was a giant leap for mankind, and one for America too. The main motivation for John Kennedy’s moon program was the Cold War and competition with the Soviet Union, but it became far more than that.


It also became the largest and most successful government peaceful stimulus package in American history. You would have to go back to the funding for the transcontinental railroads in the 19th century to find an equal.

The government pumped $25 billion (about $170 billion today) into the quest to send Americans to the moon. That does not include the funding for Gemini and Mercury, the programs that set up Apollo. The old canard from critics was, “why are we spending all that money on the moon when we could be spending it here in America?” We were, of course, spending almost every dime of it in America.

At its peak, Apollo employed 400,000 people directly in the government or through contractors, and hundreds of thousands more indirectly. Many of those people were our best engineers and scientists, skilled technicians, and even talented bureaucrats. NASA in the 1960s and early 1970s is still the most efficient government agency I have ever encountered. Every time I hear a politician say the government can’t do anything very well, I think of them.

It was a triumph of nerds and test pilots.

For the money, we got the greatest technological achievement in history. One of the myths surrounding the space program is that it led to the invention of mundane advances like Teflon and Velcro, neither of which is true, although both were used. The advances were far greater than that.

What it generated is much of the electronic age we live in, the way we build computers and electronics, how we program them, how we organize them. The first fuel cells flew in Apollo. Much of the early work in integrated circuits derived from solving technical problems in flying men to the moon and returning them. With every mission, the computers got smaller and more powerful.

It is absolutely true that the laptop computer I am using to write this has more computing power than the computers that flew to the moon, but I would not be writing on it now had those computers not gone there then.

The scientific results were staggering. We could hold pieces of the moon in our hands—and I did—and study them. As a result, we know far more about the origin of the solar system and our Earth than we knew before.

The economy boomed as a result of the technological advances and the money the government pumped into it.

One more thing: The world changed because of one photograph taken by the Apollo 17 crew, the famous Blue Marble photo of the Earth, sitting alone in the blackness of space, green and blue and vulnerable. Along with Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, it molded our view of the fragility of our planet and led to the environmental movement. No one predicted that.

It is estimated that one-fifth of the human population of Earth saw the landing on television, saw Armstrong plant the American flag.

But none of that was sufficient reason to go then, or to go now. There is a greater reason.

The late Jonathan Eberhart of Science News, a friend and colleague, in one brilliant column cut through it all. We should explore space because that’s what we humans do, he wrote. We explore. We are not content with where we are, we want to see what is over there. It is part of our DNA.

When the great explorations of Earth began, there probably were people who told Cook and Magellan and Hudson and Columbus and all the rest that it was a waste of resources or that if God wanted us to find a northwest passage, he would have put up road signs or something. But they went. That’s us. We have the capacity (and as the modern-day analog to the old empires, “we” is mostly the United States) to do it.

What we now lack is the will and courage. What if we decided to go to Mars? How is that for a stimulus package?

Neil Armstrong and the Apollo program were the marks of a nation in its ascent or at its most powerful. And now?

Joel Shurkin is a freelance writer in Baltimore and the author of nine nooks on science and science history. He has taught journalism at Stanford, the Univeristy of California at Santa Cruz, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks.