3 ms·

> "in the highly probable event that the brave souls aboard Apollo 11 became stranded on the moon" Highly probable? Is this backed up by something? I've read s

> "in the highly probable event that the brave souls aboard Apollo 11 became stranded on the moon" Highly probable? Is this backed up by something? I've read some on Apollo 11, but never came across the idea that the astronauts being stranded was considered a likely event.

frikk 12y ago
Any technical failure (non-zero chance) could result in someone being stranded. I think that's all that they're referring to.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
There were a number of scenarios where the mission might have failed. This was partly due to lack of information (can the lander actually remain vertical on lunar regolith where it is landing?) and partly due to weight contraints on the number of redundant systems. For example the same cryopump that exploded on Apollo 13 could have had the same failure on the command module of Apollo 11 while the Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Moon. Armstrong manually piloted the LEM due to a bug in the computer programming for the landing, and had to move laterally as the original landing site had too many boulders. He landed with less than 30 seconds of reserve propellent. Errors in re-entry burns can lead to entering the atmosphere too quickly or too shallowly. Either are fatal. There were many, many things that could have doomed the mission which supports the notion of 'highly probable'.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  "Many things can go wrong" != "failure is highly probable". You also have to think about the probability of each one of those things going wrong.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    In general I agree with that, however there were many single points of failure in the Apollo program that resulted loss of crew and vehicle. In a conversational article such as this one I did not feel that the characterization was unwarranted. as I recall Michael Collins said as much in his book on the mission. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Carrying-Fire-An-Astronauts-Journeys/dp/0374531943/ http://www.amazon.com/Carrying-Fire-An-Astronauts-Journeys/d...
Crito 12y ago
A speech was even written for that possibility: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/08/26/160077053/the-eulogy-that-wasnt-the-fate-neil-armstrong-evaded http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/08/26/160077053/the-e... I've heard it described as the "greatest speech that was never given".
- valleyer 12y ago
  This is literally mentioned in the first paragraph of TFA.
brudgers 12y ago
Eagle's flight computer ran into problems three minutes before landing. [1] Software engineering saved the day. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)#Apollo_11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)#...

frikk 12y ago

Any technical failure (non-zero chance) could result in someone being stranded. I think that's all that they're referring to.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

There were a number of scenarios where the mission might have failed. This was partly due to lack of information (can the lander actually remain vertical on lunar regolith where it is landing?) and partly due to weight contraints on the number of redundant systems. For example the same cryopump that exploded on Apollo 13 could have had the same failure on the command module of Apollo 11 while the Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Moon. Armstrong manually piloted the LEM due to a bug in the computer programming for the landing, and had to move laterally as the original landing site had too many boulders. He landed with less than 30 seconds of reserve propellent. Errors in re-entry burns can lead to entering the atmosphere too quickly or too shallowly. Either are fatal. There were many, many things that could have doomed the mission which supports the notion of 'highly probable'.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
"Many things can go wrong" != "failure is highly probable". You also have to think about the probability of each one of those things going wrong.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  In general I agree with that, however there were many single points of failure in the Apollo program that resulted loss of crew and vehicle. In a conversational article such as this one I did not feel that the characterization was unwarranted. as I recall Michael Collins said as much in his book on the mission. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Carrying-Fire-An-Astronauts-Journeys/dp/0374531943/ http://www.amazon.com/Carrying-Fire-An-Astronauts-Journeys/d...

Crito 12y ago

A speech was even written for that possibility: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/08/26/160077053/the-eulogy-that-wasnt-the-fate-neil-armstrong-evaded http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/08/26/160077053/the-e... I've heard it described as the "greatest speech that was never given".

valleyer 12y ago
This is literally mentioned in the first paragraph of TFA.

brudgers 12y ago

Eagle's flight computer ran into problems three minutes before landing. [1] Software engineering saved the day. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)#Apollo_11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)#...