In 1969, while astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made their historic Moon landing, another figure quietly made history. As the world watched Apollo 11, Michael Collins, the mission's third astronaut, orbited the Moon alone, earning the title “the loneliest man in history," per Express. Collins documented his solitary journey in haunting notes, revealing his thoughts and emotions during the mission.
Image Source: The crew members of NASA's Apollo 11 mission pose for a group portrait. From left to right, Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin Jr. (Photo by Space Frontiers/Getty Images)
Collins expressed his fear of returning to Earth alone if the mission failed. While waiting for news of the landing, he compared his stress to that of a "nervous bride." He wrote, “My secret terror for the last six months has been leaving them on the Moon and returning to Earth alone; now I am within minutes of finding out the truth of the matter. If they fail to rise from the surface or crash back into it, I am not going to commit suicide; I am coming home, forthwith, but I will be a marked man for life and I know it,” Collins wrote.
Image Source: Apollo 11 astronauts (L to R): Buzz Aldrin, Lunar Module Pilot; Neil Armstrong, Lunar Module Cmdr.; and Michael Collins, Command Module Pilot
Going forward in his journey alone while Aldrin and Armstrong had each other for support surely felt upsetting. It is one of the striking feelings that Collins noted in his book “Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut’s Journey.” The astronaut, in his note, mentioned, “I am alone now, truly alone, and isolated from any known life. I am it. If a count were taken, the score would be three billion plus two over on the other side of the Moon, and one plus God knows what on this side.” Sharing more about his experience and everything that surrounded it, Collins revealed that the journey was challenging but worth it, per 60 Minutes Australia.
Image Source: Apollo 11 astronauts the day after their successful splashdown in the Pacific. LTR: Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins.
"Did I have the best seat on Apollo 11? No. Was I happy with the seat I did have? Yes – I was, and to be any small part of that suited me very, very well. And, besides, I was their ticket home – they couldn't get home without me,” he mentioned. Though Collins wasn’t given the fame and popularity as Armstrong and Aldrin, he still was a crucial part of the mission and that is a win he’s always acknowledged. It was also mentioned that while the duo impressively collected rocks and explored the moon, Collins was refined to the command module.
Image Source: American former astronaut and test pilot Michael Collins on March 16, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Omar Vega/Getty Images)
Collins experienced 47 minutes of pitch-black darkness and loneliness. He remarked, "The food was terrible, but I enjoyed my time behind the moon, it's a more rugged place and not a very comfortable place,” he explained. Collins expressed his blissful love for his planet Earth despite being on the moon and how its “center stage” and magnificent “blue” caught his eye even more from space. “The moon was impressive but even after being so close to it, it was nothing compared to our home planet,” he added.
Representative Image: Accents reveal heritage and history. 
Representative Image: Even unseen you can learn a lot from an accent. 
Rice grain and white rice.Image via 
Person eats rice.Image via 
Washing and rinsing rice. 
Mother and daughter eating rice meal.Image via 
Bees feeding on food source.Image via 
In the depths...Pexels | francesco ungaro
Hope the lights stay on. Pexels | parfait fongang
"That was beyond crazy..." YouTube | 
"This is the stuff of my nightmares..."YouTube | 
"Totally blown away..." YouTube | 
A representative Image of The Atlantic Ocean. Source: Pexels | Kellie Churchman
Representative Image Source: Painting from a series by Ernest Untermann in the museum at Dinosaur National Monument, Utah.
Representative Image Source: VARIOUS DINOSAURS IN GOBI DESERT. Photo by H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock/Getty Images
President Donald J. Trump and photo of a forest.
Public united and adamantly opposes Trump’s plan to roll back the Roadless Rule
There doesn't seem to be much agreement happening in the U.S. right now. Differing moral belief systems, economic disparity, and political divide have made a country with so many positives sometimes feel a little lost. Everyone desperately seeks a niche, a connection, or a strong sense of community to which they can feel a "part of," rather than just "apart."
But there seems to be one thing that the country strongly unites over, and that's the "Roadless Rule." With the Trump Administration attempting to roll back conservation policies that protect U.S. National Forests, Americans are saying in harmony an emphatic "No." A nonpartisan conservation and advocacy organization, the Center for Western Priorities, reviewed a comment analysis on the subject. After receiving 223,862 submissions, a staggering 99 percent are opposed to the president's plan of repeal.
What is the 'Roadless Rule' policy implemented in 2001?
The Roadless Rule has a direct impact on nearly 60 million acres of national forests and grasslands. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the rule prohibits road construction and timber harvests. Enacted in 2001, it is a conservation rule that protects some of the least developed portions of our forests. It's considered to be one of the most important conservation wins in U.S. history.
America's national forests and grasslands are diverse ecosystems, timeless landscapes, and living treasures. They sustain the country with clean water and the wood products necessary to build our communities. The National Parks protected under their umbrella offer incredible recreational retreats and outdoor adventure.
Why does the administration want to roll it back?
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins told the Department of Agriculture in a 2025 press release, “We are one step closer to common sense management of our national forest lands. Today marks a critical step forward in President Trump’s commitment to restoring local decision-making to federal land managers to empower them to do what’s necessary to protect America’s forests and communities from devastating destruction from fires." Rollins continued, “This administration is dedicated to removing burdensome, outdated, one-size-fits-all regulations that not only put people and livelihoods at risk but also stifle economic growth in rural America. It is vital that we properly manage our federal lands to create healthy, resilient, and productive forests for generations to come. We look forward to hearing directly from the people and communities we serve as we work together to implement productive and commonsense policy for forest land management.”
Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz explained the Roadless Rule frustrated land management and acts as a challenging barrier to action. It prohibits road construction needed to navigate wildfire suppression and properly maintain the forest. Schultz said, “The forests we know today are not the same as the forests of 2001. They are dangerously overstocked and increasingly threatened by drought, mortality, insect-borne disease, and wildfire. It’s time to return land management decisions where they belong – with local Forest Service experts who best understand their forests and communities."
Why are people adamantly opposed to the proposed rollback?
A 2025 article in Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization, expressed its concern over the protection of national forests covering 36 states and Puerto Rico. A rescinded rule allows increased logging, extractive development, and oil and gas drilling in previously undisturbed backcountry. Here is what some community leaders had to say about it:
President Gloria Burns, Ketchikan Indian Community, said, "You cannot separate us from the land. We depend on Congress to update the outdated and predatory, antiquated laws that allow other countries and outside sources to extract our resource wealth. This is an attack on Tribes and our people who depend on the land to eat. The federal government must act and provide us the safeguards we need or leave our home roadless. We are not willing to risk the destruction of our homelands when no effort has been made to ensure our future is the one our ancestors envisioned for us. Without our lungs (the Tongass) we cannot breathe life into our future generations.”
Linda Behnken, executive director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association, stated, "Roadbuilding damaged salmon streams in the past — with 240 miles of salmon habitat still blocked by failed road culverts. The Roadless Rule protects our fishing economy and more than 10,000 jobs provided by commercial fishing in Southeast Alaska.”
The Sierra Club's Forest Campaign Manager Alex Craven seemed quite upset, saying, "The Forest Service followed sound science, economic common sense, and overwhelming public support when they adopted such an important and visionary policy more than 20 years ago. Donald Trump is making it crystal clear he is willing to pollute our clean air and drinking water, destroy prized habitat for species, and even increase the risk of devastating wildfires, if it means padding the bottom lines of timber and mining companies.”
The 2025 recession proposal would apply to nearly 45 million acres of the national forests. With so many people writing in opposition to the consensus, the public has determined they don't want it to happen.
Tongass National Forest is at the center of the Trump administration's intention to roll back the 2001 Roadless Rule. You can watch an Alaska Nature Documentary about the wild salmon of Tongass National Forrest here:
- YouTube www.youtube.com
The simple truth is we elect our public officials to make decisions. The hope is they do this for all of our well-being, although often it seems they do not. Even though we don't have much power to control what government officials do, voicing our opinions strongly enough often forces them to alter their present course of action. With a unanimous public voice saying, "No!" maybe this time they will course correct as the public wishes.