5 ms·

Although 13 was quite a near-disaster, I'm surprised that there isn't just as much attention to how much 11 very nearly was a disaster too. During 11's descent

by tdicola 11y ago

Although 13 was quite a near-disaster, I'm surprised that there isn't just as much attention to how much 11 very nearly was a disaster too. During 11's descent to the moon the LEM's computer was overloaded and started throwing alarms. In addition Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin realized the craft overshot its intended landing spot and was heading for a field of rocks and boulders where landing would be impossible. What saved them is Neil taking manual control of the LEM, finding a smooth landing spot, and touching down the LEM with only seconds of fuel to spare. Neil's landing is in my mind just as amazing as the recovery of 13. There was no way Neil could have really prepared for a manual landing in the low gravity of the moon. In fact when they tried to test it on Earth, it very nearly killed him (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDI8SQ2fmLA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDI8SQ2fmLA). It was purely Armstrong's intelligence and attitude under pressure that got 11 on the moon safely. And if you learn more about Armstrong you'll see it was no fluke how he performed on 11's landing. When testing the X-15 rocket plane he lost control and skipped off the top of the atmosphere but was still able to save the flight. Or during Gemini 8 when a thruster got stuck he aborted the docking attempt and fired the re-entry thruster to regain control (all of this while the craft was spinning more than once a second! http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/neil-armstrong-at-the-helm-120730.htm http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/neil-armstr...). There's a great write-up here with more details on his amazing performances under pressure: http://www.wired.com/2012/08/neil-armstrong_test-pliot/ http://www.wired.com/2012/08/neil-armstrong_test-pliot/ Without Neil Armstrong Apollo 11 very likely would have ended with Richard Nixon reading this somber message to a devastated nation: http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech...

venomsnake 11y ago
I have read the selection process that was described in Lost Moon (the book of appolo 13). The NASA were literally recruiting superhumans back then. The smartest, healthiest, toughest and on on ... So I am not at all surprised that he managed to pull it off. https://www.countbayesie.com/blog/2015/2/18/hans-solo-and-bayesian-priors https://www.countbayesie.com/blog/2015/2/18/hans-solo-and-ba...
- jonsen 11y ago
  And at the interview they could fly any spacecraft on a whiteboard.
  - JesperRavn 11y ago
    We are allowed to consider national hero's the "smartest". They get an exception to the usual PC rules. Software Engineers aren't allowed to be considered super smart because that would hint at biological determinism (not saying that one directly implies the other, but any connection is enough). Therefore any interview process that is designed to select for intelligence (rather than other qualities) is going to be regarded as illegitimate.
Someone 11y ago
"In fact when they tried to test it on Earth, it very nearly killed him [...] Without Neil Armstrong Apollo 11 very likely would have ended with Richard Nixon reading this somber message" Not necessarily. It can be argued that Neil Armstrong should have aborted the landing, rather than risk it with so little safety room. After all, if he couldn't reliably do it on earth, how can you argue that it was purely his intelligence and attitude under pressure that got them on the moon, and not also a bit of luck?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pdonis 11y ago
  Of course they had luck (and more than a bit). But aborting safely would have required luck too. They were already off their pre-planned trajectory, which meant initiating an abort would have put them off of the pre-planned abort trajectory. So a successful abort would probably also have required manual control, and not just for the minute or so required to land, but for an extended period of time while they tried to figure out the right trajectory to get back up into lunar orbit and rendezvous with the command module. Given that choice, I'm not surprised that Armstrong elected to attempt the landing.
  - Nomentatus 11y ago
    Mission control would have had the trajectory back up calculated and in hand, but separating from the lower lander stage and engaging the (different) return rocket at low altitude, outside of normal flight parameters, with an ongoing computer problem of (then) unknown origin - I would agree, that sounds still dicier. Plus, a manual landing was practiced in computer-governed simulators; it wouldn't feel the same, but otherwise the task would be quite similar - except for the dust perhaps.
fjarlq 11y ago
There was no way Neil could have really prepared for a manual landing in the low gravity of the moon. In fact when they tried to test it on Earth, it very nearly killed him That seems like an incomplete summary of the story. You're neglecting to mention all the successful flights Armstrong had in the LLRV, not to mention the successful training he received on its successor, the LLTV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle I don't agree that it was "purely" Armstrong's intelligence and attitude that resulted in Apollo 11 success. He also received a great deal of relevant sophisticated training.
- exDM69 11y ago
  The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle was jokingly known as "the only thing more dangerous than landing on the moon". Three LLRV/LLTV craft were destroyed in crashes where the pilot ejected. Despite this, the LLRV was instrumental in making the lunar landings successful. When future astronauts will train for the next lunar landing, it will surely be done in computer simulations. While it's obviously safer, the element of danger in the LLRV was probably quite character building. Armstrong had nerves of steel when he landed the Eagle in a field of house-sized boulders with just seconds of fuel remaining and alarms ringing in the cockpit.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Note that if the Apollo flight software had been designed differently the Apollo 11 landing could easily have been unsuccessful or disastrous. Margaret Hamilton's work deserves a lot of credit for that, it was a very advanced and robust design for the time and for the resource constraints (4k of ram, etc.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)#Apollo_11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)#A...
raverbashing 11y ago
"Without Neil Armstrong Apollo 11 very likely would have ended with Richard Nixon reading this somber message to a devastated nation" That's why they put him in that position and not your regular Joe Average (not to downplay the capabilities of other members of the space program) Yeah, maybe the safe thing was to abort the landing. But you're already 300 thousand kms from home, your safety margin is already very small.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gumby 11y ago
> Neil's landing is in my mind just as amazing as the recovery of 13. You're giving short shrift to Aldrin (and the training they all received) by calling it "Neil's landing". The whole team (Armstrong/Aldrin/Collins) were extraordinary. What made this clear to me was reading the transcripts of the LEM flight recorder (can't find them right now, just the audio, but they are on the NASA web site). I read Aldrin reading out meter values to Armstrong, who was looking out the window.. then realized that Aldrin couldn't see out the window and wasn't giving out readings in a fixed order! Instead he was scanning all the readings and relaying what he thought he'd want to know if he'd been the one looking out the window (without knowing what Armstrong could see). And Armstrong never asked for a reading; he assumed Aldrin was telling him just what he needed to know and nothing else. That reflects an extraordinary degree of training trust and teamwork.
- 3JPLW 11y ago
  Here's the whole PDF[1] - the landing starts around page 160. Neil does ask for some readings, but not many. Really crazy to read through. 1. http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS11_CM.PDF http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS11_CM.PDF
- neurotech1 11y ago
  All the Apollo astronauts were legendary test pilots (except Dr Harry Schmitt) [0]. Buzz and Neil are the ones everyone remembers, and they earned their place on that mission, however it took a huge team to get them there. When Apollo 13 had the explosion, other astronauts including Ken Mattingly, and John Young, had a significant role in helping get them back home. Astronauts were not just great pilots, but they knew how to work with a team. No astronaut would get selected if they were a great test pilot, but couldn't work as a crew. One particular test pilot (Chuck ..) who never became an astronaut is a classic example of that. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt

by tdicola 11y ago

venomsnake 11y ago

I have read the selection process that was described in Lost Moon (the book of appolo 13). The NASA were literally recruiting superhumans back then. The smartest, healthiest, toughest and on on ... So I am not at all surprised that he managed to pull it off. https://www.countbayesie.com/blog/2015/2/18/hans-solo-and-bayesian-priors https://www.countbayesie.com/blog/2015/2/18/hans-solo-and-ba...

jonsen 11y ago
And at the interview they could fly any spacecraft on a whiteboard.
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  We are allowed to consider national hero's the "smartest". They get an exception to the usual PC rules. Software Engineers aren't allowed to be considered super smart because that would hint at biological determinism (not saying that one directly implies the other, but any connection is enough). Therefore any interview process that is designed to select for intelligence (rather than other qualities) is going to be regarded as illegitimate.

Someone 11y ago

"In fact when they tried to test it on Earth, it very nearly killed him [...] Without Neil Armstrong Apollo 11 very likely would have ended with Richard Nixon reading this somber message" Not necessarily. It can be argued that Neil Armstrong should have aborted the landing, rather than risk it with so little safety room. After all, if he couldn't reliably do it on earth, how can you argue that it was purely his intelligence and attitude under pressure that got them on the moon, and not also a bit of luck?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pdonis 11y ago
Of course they had luck (and more than a bit). But aborting safely would have required luck too. They were already off their pre-planned trajectory, which meant initiating an abort would have put them off of the pre-planned abort trajectory. So a successful abort would probably also have required manual control, and not just for the minute or so required to land, but for an extended period of time while they tried to figure out the right trajectory to get back up into lunar orbit and rendezvous with the command module. Given that choice, I'm not surprised that Armstrong elected to attempt the landing.
- Nomentatus 11y ago
  Mission control would have had the trajectory back up calculated and in hand, but separating from the lower lander stage and engaging the (different) return rocket at low altitude, outside of normal flight parameters, with an ongoing computer problem of (then) unknown origin - I would agree, that sounds still dicier. Plus, a manual landing was practiced in computer-governed simulators; it wouldn't feel the same, but otherwise the task would be quite similar - except for the dust perhaps.

fjarlq 11y ago

There was no way Neil could have really prepared for a manual landing in the low gravity of the moon. In fact when they tried to test it on Earth, it very nearly killed him That seems like an incomplete summary of the story. You're neglecting to mention all the successful flights Armstrong had in the LLRV, not to mention the successful training he received on its successor, the LLTV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle I don't agree that it was "purely" Armstrong's intelligence and attitude that resulted in Apollo 11 success. He also received a great deal of relevant sophisticated training.

exDM69 11y ago
The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle was jokingly known as "the only thing more dangerous than landing on the moon". Three LLRV/LLTV craft were destroyed in crashes where the pilot ejected. Despite this, the LLRV was instrumental in making the lunar landings successful. When future astronauts will train for the next lunar landing, it will surely be done in computer simulations. While it's obviously safer, the element of danger in the LLRV was probably quite character building. Armstrong had nerves of steel when he landed the Eagle in a field of house-sized boulders with just seconds of fuel remaining and alarms ringing in the cockpit.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

Note that if the Apollo flight software had been designed differently the Apollo 11 landing could easily have been unsuccessful or disastrous. Margaret Hamilton's work deserves a lot of credit for that, it was a very advanced and robust design for the time and for the resource constraints (4k of ram, etc.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)#Apollo_11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)#A...

raverbashing 11y ago

"Without Neil Armstrong Apollo 11 very likely would have ended with Richard Nixon reading this somber message to a devastated nation" That's why they put him in that position and not your regular Joe Average (not to downplay the capabilities of other members of the space program) Yeah, maybe the safe thing was to abort the landing. But you're already 300 thousand kms from home, your safety margin is already very small.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

gumby 11y ago

> Neil's landing is in my mind just as amazing as the recovery of 13. You're giving short shrift to Aldrin (and the training they all received) by calling it "Neil's landing". The whole team (Armstrong/Aldrin/Collins) were extraordinary. What made this clear to me was reading the transcripts of the LEM flight recorder (can't find them right now, just the audio, but they are on the NASA web site). I read Aldrin reading out meter values to Armstrong, who was looking out the window.. then realized that Aldrin couldn't see out the window and wasn't giving out readings in a fixed order! Instead he was scanning all the readings and relaying what he thought he'd want to know if he'd been the one looking out the window (without knowing what Armstrong could see). And Armstrong never asked for a reading; he assumed Aldrin was telling him just what he needed to know and nothing else. That reflects an extraordinary degree of training trust and teamwork.

3JPLW 11y ago
Here's the whole PDF[1] - the landing starts around page 160. Neil does ask for some readings, but not many. Really crazy to read through. 1. http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS11_CM.PDF http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS11_CM.PDF
neurotech1 11y ago
All the Apollo astronauts were legendary test pilots (except Dr Harry Schmitt) [0]. Buzz and Neil are the ones everyone remembers, and they earned their place on that mission, however it took a huge team to get them there. When Apollo 13 had the explosion, other astronauts including Ken Mattingly, and John Young, had a significant role in helping get them back home. Astronauts were not just great pilots, but they knew how to work with a team. No astronaut would get selected if they were a great test pilot, but couldn't work as a crew. One particular test pilot (Chuck ..) who never became an astronaut is a classic example of that. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt