Thursday, August 20, 2009

World's Cheapest Car: First Tata Nano Deliveries

The world’s cheapest car, the Tata Nano, hits the streets tomorrow, on Friday, August 20, 2009, as the first customer gets the keys to a vehicle that its makers hope will transform travel for millions of Indians. No wonder that the world s cheapest car search hit the top of the Google Searches. So, do not read further and give your bet. How much you would guess the cheapest car on the Earth cost? I do not know about you, but I was quite surprised when I saw that the cost of the car would be slightly higher than $2K.


It's called the Nano, for its high technology and small size. It's cute, compact, and contemporary. It's a complete four-door car with a 623-cc gas engine, gets 50 miles to the gallon, and seats up to five. It meets domestic emissions norms and will soon comply with European standards. It's 8% smaller in outer length than its closest rival, Suzuki's Maruti 800, but has 21% more volume inside. The speedometer and other instruments cluster in a central pod in the middle of the dashboard rather than directly in front of the driver, the easier (and cheaper) to offer both left- and right-hand versions when Tata Motors starts exporting the car to Southeast Asia and Africa in a couple of years. The top third of the over-sized headlights act as the turn signals (indicators) and look like cheeky yellow eyebrows above the main lights. It has a top speed of about 60 miles per hour. And at $2,000 before taxes (value-added taxes increase the price by about $250), it is the most inexpensive car in the world. The car is manufactured by a Tata Motors (TTM) plant in Singur, Bengal, and is designed to navigate India's potholed roads.

The head of the Nano team says Tata Motors has applied for 34 patents on various components and design features on the new car, though he was short on specifics. The car reportedly uses super strong glue rather than welds in some joints — a technique that a handful of other car makers have used before, though perhaps never as extensively. Tata Motors' cost-cutting drive was relentless: the windshield has just one washer rather than two, the metal steering column was hollowed out to save on steel, cheaper bearings — strong enough to perform well up to (70 kph) but fast wearing beyond that — may be used rather than more expensive components. "It's a very tight package," Ratan Tata said. Given the steep rise in the cost of steel, rubber and other inputs in the past few years, it's possible that the entry level Nano might not break even, though Tata made a point of saying the "one lakh" price tag in India will stay because "a promise is a promise". The car, the company says, will make money across its various models.








The head of Tata Motors, Ratan Tata, was to deliver the first car in person at a central Mumbai dealership, the company said. No details were immediately available about the recipient or the type of Nano being delivered.

Some 100,000 people were selected from a ballot to be the first recipients of the Nano, which reviewers have compared to the European Smart car and the classic “People’s Car”, the Volkswagen Beetle.

They include a roadside cobbler from Mumbai, who had been saving for seven years to buy a two-wheeler, but decided to wait and upgrade to four wheels on hearing that the vehicle would sell for just 100,000 rupees (2,055 dollars).

Others among the 203,000 people who placed orders included an 82-year-old former assistant commissioner of Mumbai police who used to ride a scooter and a market trader looking for an investment for his 12-year-old son.

India’s first female photo-journalist, Homi Vyarawalla, who is now in her mid-90s, has also bid for a car.

Ratan Tata launched the Nano in March, predicting the no-frills vehicle would revolutionize travel for millions of Indians, getting the growing middle-class, urban population off motorcycles and into safer, affordable cars.

Three versions of the sporty, jellybean-shaped Nano went on sale in April: the basic model and more expensive CX and LX models, which have extra features like air-conditioning, automatic windows and central locking.








The standard model sells for 140,000 rupees in the showroom. The deluxe models cost up to 185,000 rupees.

Tata Motors, part of the tea-to-steel Tata Group conglomerate, is India’s top vehicle maker but like many firms in the automotive sector has been hit by the global economic slowdown which has cut demand for trucks and cars.

Last month it posted its first consolidated full-year net loss in eight years, partly blamed on a slump in sales at luxury British carmaker Jaguar Land Rover, which it bought from Ford last year.

Slideshow:


Monday, August 17, 2009

Ancient and Modern Sea Mysteries: Mary Celeste and Arctic Sea

Mary Celeste, one of the most intriguing mysteries of all times, has appeared in the Top Google Searches today. It is hard to consider the Mary Celeste story to be a part of the hot news, but it was logically linked to the new mystery of a cargo ship Arctic Sea, which was found today after vanishing for two weeks.




Arctic Sea Story
The ship's owners, Solchart Management, confirmed to CNN that the vessel and its crew (15 seamen) were safe, following Russian media reports that it had been found near the Cape Verde islands off the West African coast by Russian military vessel Ladny.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Since it disappeared off the charts, rumors and conspiracy theories have stirred in the Russian-crewed vessel's wake, with a fog of conflicting sightings and reports doing little to help separate fact from fiction.
Conjuring plots worthy of "Hunt for Red October" author Tom Clancy, online chatter threw up numerous possibilities about the fate of the Arctic Sea, casting the ship variously as a covert weapons transporter, a drug courier or the booty in a mutinous crime venture.

Then there were the predictable supernatural explanations, invoking Bermuda Triangle legends or drawing comparisons to the Mary Celeste "ghost ship," a twin-masted merchant vessel that was found under full sail -- minus its crew -- in the Atlantic in 1872.

Fueling the Cold War-style conspiracies was Moscow's involvement: The Kremlin said the Russian Navy, backed by space hardware, was in hot pursuit of the Arctic Sea. Sightings of Russian attack submarines off the U.S. coast last week have only helped to fan the flames.

However fanciful, these theories did at least attempt to explain why anyone -- whether hijackers, pirates, or spies -- would be interested in a 17-year-old Turkish-built, Maltese-flagged vessel with a rather mundane payload of Scandinavian wood.

An apparent ransom demand, which Finnish police said had been issued to shipping company Solchart Management, suggested some motive for abducting the vessel, but did little to clarify the events since the ship was reportedly boarded by hijackers on July 24.

After that incident off the coast of Sweden, according to a confusing array of sightings and reports, the Arctic Sea sailed through the English Channel, was possibly hijacked a second time off Portugal, vanished on July 31, was sighted off the Cape Verde islands on Friday and then blipped back onto computer screens in the Bay of Biscay for a fleeting moment on Saturday.

There is the real possibility that much of the mystery surrounding the ship is as a result of a media blackout imposed by military and law enforcement agencies to protect the lives of the 15 crewmen as they attempted to take out or negotiate with those behind an extortion bid.

Micro-blogging site Twitter, meanwhile, worked overtime to try to fill this vacuum of facts, with users collating and swapping a litany of claims by unnamed sources and sketchy media reports.

Some speculated the disappearance was part of a Russian military training exercise, or perhaps a rehearsal for a 9/11-style terror event involving non-military merchant craft bound for the United States.

Piracy theorists meanwhile speculated that the ship's original boarders never left, maintaining an illusion of normality through the English Channel before spiriting it off to an unmonitored port for resale.
While this seemed one of the most credible explanations, maritime experts expressed strong doubts that such an attack would or even could take place in heavily-policed European waters.

Others worked with the premise that the ship was never boarded in the first place, and accounts of the hijacking were fabricated by the crew with the intention of making off with the ship and selling it on.
The most dramatic theories argued that the Arctic Sea picked up weapons or a mafia drugs consignment while undergoing maintenance during a recent port call in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, then the drug deal went sour, or the weapons mission attracted outside intervention.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic


Mikhail Voitenko, editor of the Russian Maritime Bulletin, told CNN he believed the Arctic Sea must have been carrying a "secret cargo", to attract such attention, however he would not elaborate on its nature.
In a breathtakingly bold piece of geo-political deduction that now looks largely discredited, one Russian Web site took this even further, detailing a plot that had the Kremlin using the Arctic Sea to deliver cruise missiles to Iran with the aim of drawing U.S. attention away from territorial disputes with Georgia. However, it claimed, the mission was thwarted by a covert U.S. military operation.

Will we know the truth?

Not sure.

Mary Celeste Story
While there are very slim chances that the real story of the Russian Arctic Sea will ever be discovered, the mystery of the famous Mary Celeste attracted curious minds of the many generations. Here is a brief case review with the most probable explanation.

The British brigantine Dei Gratia came upon the Mary Celeste sailing erratically midway between the Azores and Portugal on 4 December 1872. The crew could spot no one on deck threw their spy glass so the captain of the Dei Gratia dispatched a boarding party lead by 1st Mate Oliver Deveau. Deveau's team reported that the ship was fully provisioned and perfectly seaworthy yet mysteriously abandoned. A few clues indicated the crew of the Mary Celeste had quickly launched a small yawl for no apparent reason.

The Mary C had departed New York on 5 November loaded with 1,709 barrels of grain alcohol bound for Genoa, Italy.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


The crew endured strong winds from the time they left New York until arriving at Santa Maria Island in the Azores --- they'd sailed the last few hundreds miles in a gale.

It seems reasonable to suggest that in order to take a break from the pounding, the captain gave the order to sail to the lee side of Santa Maria Island where the cook started a fire in the large galley stove to make hot food while other members of the crew furled most of the sails, leaving just enough canvas up to hold her course as they made their way slowly along the lee shore. Other crew members set about pumping the bilge and doing other chores. When the food was ready, the men stopped what they were doing and ate. After taking a smoke break, the Captain gave orders to get underway and the crew went back to work. Some went back to pumping the bilge; others started to set the sails they had just furled. Just then the seafloor started dancing up and down in a violent seaquake, relatively common in the Azores

During rapid vertically shifting of the hard bottom, the seabed becomes like a giant transducer, pushing and pulling the water, sending powerful alternating pressure waves towards the surface. The results onboard the boat were as if there was no sea at all under the ship....just as though the vessel was setting on dry land during an earthquake. The deck on the Mary Celeste shook violently. The severe vibrations loosened the stays around nine barrels, dumping almost 500 gallons of raw alcohol into the bilge. Fumes spread rapidly throughout the boat. The seaquake also shook the galley stove so violently that it was lifted up from its chocks and set down out of place.

Choking on the alcohol fumes from the leaking barrels while seeing sparks and embers flying about from the fire in the cooking stove was all it took to send the crew into panic and cause them to quickly launch the small yawl and try to get away from the coming explosion.

The elation the crew felt when the alcohol fumes did not explode was short lived.

In the fear of the moment, the crew forgot to secure a line from the life boat to the mother ship. They watched in dismay as the Mary Celeste, now crewless, sailed slowly away from the yawl with her jib and two other small sails set.  As she pulled away from the small sailing yawl, the men had to decide  quickly whether to try to catch up with their ship, or go for the safety of Santa Maria Island, less than 10 miles away. They likely argued about the merits of each course of action, but, knowing they would be disgraced for having abandoned their seaworthy boat and her valuable cargo, they chose to try to catch the Mary C in the small yawl, hoping (1) they could overcome her, or (2) the wind would shift and cause her to tack back towards them. Each day of their journey carried them further and further away from the safety of Santa Maria. They never caught up to their mother ship. Five months later, five highly decomposed bodies were found tied to two rafts off the coast of Spain. One was flying an American flag. Thus is the fate of the crew the greatest sea mystery ever told.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Definitely, this is just one of the versions of what really happened. What were the other versions? Piracy was immediately ruled out as personal effects were left by the crew, which would have been instantly looted and there had been no reports of pirates around the Azores for many years. Mutiny, storm, underwater earthquake and tsunami have all been touted as possible reasons, but all dismissed. No undersea tremors were recorded by either Briggs or Moorhouse. Briggs was a fair captain, ruling out mutiny. The same can be said for storms, while tsunami was ruled out as the effects would do little or no damage in deep water, apart from a freak wave that would totally destroy the ship. Waterspout is a logical explanation which would explain the water on board, while risk of explosion, considering the cargo of alcohol onboard, would cause the crew to leave the ship hastily. Other more far fetched theories have involved alien abduction and sea monsters.

While placing the underwater quake under question, the fire version remains unbeaten yet. But if there was a fire, why there were no obvious traces of fire or explosion on the ship, when it was found? To answer the question, Chemist Dr. Andrea Sella built a replica of the Mary Celeste’s. He used paper cubes and simulated an explosion with butane gas. The paper cubes neither burned nor blackened. The replica of the hold wasn’t damaged. The fire was a pressure-wave explosive. There was an astonishing burst of flame. Cool air was behind it, but there was no burning, soot or scorching. The explosion could have blown open the hatches. Such a massive flare-up could have been triggered by a spark caused when two loose barrels rubbed together or when a crewman, smoking a pipe, opened a hatch to ventilate the hold. According to records, 300 gallons of alcohol leaked – more than enough to create an explosion.

Monday, July 20, 2009

July 20 1969 - Man on the Moon!!!

Man will never reach the moon regardless
 of all future scientific advances.
  --     Dr. Lee De Forest (inventor of the vacuum tube
and father of television), February 1957






Man on the Moon!


Today is the 40-th anniversary of man's greatest achievement ever. On July 20, 1969 - Man first walked on the Moon!



I do remember clearly the exact day, when it happened. It was not just my birthday, but a small anniversary. Than, I was 5 years old, and everything was filled with magic. So, the space news were at the time absolutely normal for me, as I believed that anything can happen. Walking through the time, my personal anniversary will always be together with this amazing fact, which did not become less significant 40 years later.

Yes, on July 20, 1969, the human race accomplished its single greatest technological achievement of all time when a human first set foot on another celestial body. Six hours after landing at 4:17 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (with less than 30 seconds of fuel remaining), Neil A. Armstrong took the “Small Step” into our greater future when he stepped off the Lunar Module, named “Eagle,” onto the surface of the Moon, from which he could look up and see Earth in the heavens as no one had done before him. He was shortly joined by “Buzz” Aldrin, and the two astronauts spent 21 hours on the lunar surface and returned 46 pounds of lunar rocks. After their historic walks on the Moon, they successfully docked with the Command Module “Columbia,” in which Michael Collins was patiently orbiting the cold but no longer lifeless Moon.

Note that the Soviet Union was first to land a spacecraft on the moon, in 1959, but NASA's Neil Armstrong becomes the first human to set foot on the lunar surface, realizing humanity's age-old dream and effectively winning the space race for the United States.

NASA archive - Picture of Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin Aldrin on July 15, 1969:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic




Lunar Exploration Chronology (1958 – 1998)

Review the exploration timeline and how tight was the competition between the USA and the Soviet Union. For the Soviet Union, it was the matter of the social pride to bypass the USA on the way to Space. The best human resources and financial contributions were directed towards space projects, and Russians were very close to capture the moon landing priority as well. For them, it was a factual proof the communist society is far superior to the capitalist society.
Name 
Nation 
Date Launched 
Mission 
Pioneer 1 (p) 
US 
11 Oct 1958 
Flyby attempt that reached 71,700 miles (1/3 of distance to Moon) before falling back toward Earth. Returned Van Allen Radiation Belt data. 
Pioneer 2 (u) 
US 
8 Nov 1958 
Flyby attempt that reached 963 miles and yielded no useful scientific data. 
Pioneer 3 (p) 
US 
6 Dec 1958 
Flyby attempt that reached 63,500 miles before falling back toward Earth. Returned Van Allen Radiation Belt data. 
Luna 1 (p) 
USSR 
2 Jan 1959 
Impact attempt that resulted in flyby within 3,728 miles of Moon. 
Pioneer 4 (p) 
US 
3 Mar 1959 
Flyby at 35,500 miles from Moon. 
Luna 2 (s) 
USSR 
12 Sep 1959 
Impacted on Moon 13 Sep 1959 at 22:02:04 UT, Latitude 29.10 N, Longitude 0.00—Palus Putredinis. 
Luna 3 (s) 
USSR 
4 Oct 1959 
Lunar flyby that transmitted first images of far side of Moon. 
Ranger 1 (u) 
US 
23 Aug 1961 
Lunar impact attempt that entered Earth orbit after booster failure and reentered atmosphere on 30 Aug 1961. 
Ranger 2 (u) 
US 
18 Nov 1961 
Lunar impact attempt that entered Earth orbit after booster failure and reentered atmosphere on 19 Nov 1961. 
Ranger 3 (u) 
US 
26 Jan 1962 
Lunar impact attempt; spacecraft malfunction in encounter period. 
Ranger 4 (u) 
US 
23 Apr 1962 
Lunar impact attempt; spacecraft computer and sequencer malfunctioned in Earth orbit. 
Ranger 5 (u) 
US 
18 Oct 1962
Lunar impact attempt; spacecraft malfunctioned in Earth orbit. 
Sputnik 25 (u) 
USSR 
4 Jan 1963 
Unnamed Luna-class probe, known by Sputnik 25 West; spacecraft malfunctioned in Earth orbit. 
Luna ? (u) 
USSR 
2 Feb 1963 
Unnamed Luna-class probe that failed to reach Earth orbit. 
Luna 4 (u) 
USSR 
2 Apr 1963 
Lunar impact; spacecraft malfunctioned en route to Moon. 
Ranger 6 (p) 
US 
30 Jan 1964 
Lunar impact, but cameras failed. 
Ranger 7 (s) 
US 
28 Jul 1964 
Lunar impact that transmitted 4,316 photographs of surface. 
Ranger 8 (s) 
US 
17 Feb 1965 
Lunar impact that transmitted 7,137 photographs of surface. 
Cosmos 60 (u) 
USSR
9 Mar 1965 
Lunar soft lander that failed in Earth orbit. 
Ranger 9 (s) 
US 
21 Mar 1965 
Lunar impact that transmitted photographs as it crashed into Crater Alphonsus. 
Luna 5 (u) 
USSR 
9 May 1965 
Lunar soft lander; retrorockets malfunctioned and crashed into Sea of Clouds
Luna 6 (u) 
USSR 
8 Jun 1965 
Lunar soft lander; rockets malfunctioned and spacecraft leapt off course, missing Moon by 99,000 miles. 
Zond 3 (s) 
USSR 
18 Jul 1965 
Probe photographed far side of Moon during flyby on way to Mars. Zond 1 and 2 were probes sent to Venus and Mars. 
Luna 7 (u) 
USSR 
4 Oct 1965 
Lunar soft lander that crashed into Ocean of Storms near crater Kepler. 
Luna 8 (u) 
USSR 
3 Dec 1965 
Lunar soft lander that crashed into Ocean of Storms near crater Galilaei. 
Luna 9 (s) 
USSR 
31 Jan 1966 
Lunar soft lander that landed on Moon 3 Feb 1966 at 18:44:52 UT, Latitude 7.08 N, Longitude 295.63 E—Oceanus Procellarum. 
Luna 10 (s) 
USSR 
31 Mar 1966 
Lunar orbiter. 
Surveyor 1 (s) 
US 
30 May 1966 
Lunar soft lander that landed in Ocean of Storms on 2 Jun 1966 and transmitted more than 10,000 photographs of surface. 
Lunar Orbiter 1 (s) 
US 
10 Aug 1966 
Lunar orbiter. 
Luna 11 (s) 
USSR 
24 Aug 1966 
Lunar orbiter. 
Surveyor 2 (u) 
US 
20 Sep 1966 
Lunar soft lander that crashed southeast of crater Copernicus. 
Luna 12 (s) 
USSR 
22 Oct 1966 
Lunar orbiter. 
Lunar Orbiter 2 (s) 
US 
6 Nov 1966 
Lunar orbiter. 
Luna 13 (s) 
USSR 
21 Dec 1966 
Landed on Moon 24 Dec 1966 at 18:01:00 UT, Latitude 18.87 N, Longitude 297.95 E—Oceanus Procellarum. 
Lunar Orbiter 3 (s) 
US 
4 Feb 1967 
Lunar orbiter. 
Surveyor 3 (s) 
US 
17 Apr 1967 
Landed on Moon 20 Apr 1967 at Ocean of Storms 230 miles south of crater Copernicus. 
Lunar Orbiter 4 (s) 
US 
8 May 1967 
Lunar orbiter. 
Surveyor 4 (u) 
US 
14 Jul 1967 
Lunar soft lander that lost contact with Earth just before landing. 
Lunar Orbiter 5 (s) 
US 
1 Aug 1967 
Lunar orbiter. 
Surveyor 5 (s) 
US 
8 Sep 1967 
Landed on Moon 10 Sep 1967 in Sea of Tranquility, 15.5 miles from Apollo 11 landing site. 
Surveyor 6 (s) 
US 
7 Nov 1967 
Landed on Moon 9 Nov 1967 at Latitude .5 N, Longitude 1.4 W. On 17 Nov 1967 spacecraft rockets were fired and the lander was moved 8 feet to the west for stereoscopic measurements of region. 
Surveyor 7 (s) 
US 
7 Jan 1968 
Landed on Moon 10 Jan 1968 at Latitude 40.9 S, Longitude 11.5 W, 18 miles north of crater Tycho. 
Luna 14 (s) 
USSR 
7 Apr 1968 
Lunar orbiter. 
Zond 5 (s) 
USSR 
15 Sep 196 
Circumlunar mission that returned to Earth 21 Sep 1968. 
Zond 6 (s) 
USSR 
10 Nov 1968 
Circumlunar mission that returned to Earth 17 Nov 1968. 
Apollo 8 (s) 
US 
21 Dec 1968 
Piloted orbiter. 
Apollo 10 (s) 
US 
18 May 1969 
Piloted orbiter. 
Luna 15 (u) 
USSR 
13 Jul 1969 
Lunar soft lander that crashed at Sea of Crises
Apollo 11 (s) 
US 
16 Jul 1969 
Piloted landing. 
Zond 7 (s) 
USSR 
7 Aug 1969 
Circumlunar mission that returned to Earth 14 Aug, 1969. 
Apollo 12 (s) 
US 
14 Nov 1969 
Piloted landing. 
Apollo 13 (p) 
US 
11 Apr 1970 
Piloted landing mission that was partially successful only because crew returned safely. 
Luna 16 (s) 
USSR 
12 Sep 1970 
Landed on Moon 20 Sep 1970 at 05:18:00 UT, Latitude 0.68 S, Longitude 56.30 E—Mare Fecunditatis. Lunar sample return. 
Zond 8 (s) 
USSR 
20 Oct 1970 
Circumlunar mission that returned to Earth 27 Oct 1970. 
Luna 17 (s) 
USSR 
10 Nov 1970 
Landed on Moon 17 Nov 1970 at 03:47:00 UT, Latitude 38.28 N, Longitude 325.00 E—Mare Imbrium. Lunar rover—Lunokhod 1. 
Apollo 14 (s) 
US 
31 Jan 1971 
Piloted landing. 
Apollo 15 (s) 
US 
26 Jul 1971 
Piloted landing. 
Luna 18 (u) 
USSR 
2 Sep 1971 
Landed on Moon 8 Sep 1971, Latitude 3.5 N, Longitude 56.5 E. Lost communication after landing. 
Luna 19 (s) 
USSR 
28 Sep 1971 
Lunar orbiter. 
Luna 20 (s) 
USSR 
14 Feb 1972 
Landed on Moon 21 Feb 1972 at 19:19:00 UT, Latitude 3.57 N, Longitude 56.50 E—Mare Fecunditatis. Lunar sample return to Earth 25 Feb 1972. 
Apollo 16 (s) 
US 
16 Apr 1972 
Piloted landing. 
Apollo 17 (s) 
US 
7 Dec 1972 
Piloted landing. 
Luna 21 (s) 
USSR 
8 Jan 1973 
Landed on Moon 15 Jan 1973 at 23:35:00 UT, Latitude 25.51 N, Longitude 30.38 E—Mare Serenitatis. Lunar rover—Lunokhod 2. 
Luna 22 (s) 
USSR 
2 Jun 1974 
Lunar orbiter. 
Luna 23 (p) 
USSR 
28 Oct 1975 
Landed on Moon 6 Nov 1973, Sea of Crises; damaged in landing and only three days of research undertaken. 
Luna 24 (s) 
USSR 
14 Aug 1976 
Landed on Moon 18 Aug 1976 at 02:00:00 UT, Latitude 12.25 N, Longitude 62.20 E—Mare Crisium. Lunar sample return. 
Clementine (s) 
US 
25 Jan 1994 
Lunar orbiter that mapped surface in greater detail than anything previously. 
Lunar Prospector (s) 
US 
6 Jan 1998 
Lunar Prospector was launched on this date for a one-year polar mission to explore the Moon, especially whether or not water ice is buried inside the lunar crust.


Video Presentations
But let’s come back in time to these remarkable fays from the Apollo 11 launch on July 16, 1969 to the moment.

Video 1: Watch it now, as you would have seen it on July 16, 1969, at 9:26 AM EDT. T-minus 00:5:59 and counting. The live U.S. broadcast via satellite of the lift-off of Apollo 11.






Video 2: Look at the people from around the world who saw these incredible images live on TV.  They are all in disbelief on what they say on TV that morning on July 20, 1969! 






Video 3: Truly spectacular images of Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon!!!











Sources and Additional Information: