35th Anniversary of Apollo 13 Splashdown 197
orac2 writes "35 years ago today, the crew of the Apollo 13 mission splashed down in the Pacific, after a harrowing four days following an oxygen tank explosion aboard their spacecraft. If you've only seen the Ron Howard movie, IEEE Spectrum has an article about what really went on in mission control to save the crew, with interviews with Gene Kranz, etc,and including a previously unreported hack the lunar module controllers had to come up with in real-time just to turn on the LM."
Re:Now *that*s a cool hack! (Score:5, Interesting)
So much more interesting than the Hollywood drivel (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:True geeks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anniversaries... (Score:1, Interesting)
Buckminster Fuller commented that we made the same progress in about 20 years technologically that we did in the 2,000 years prior to the mission.
MBAs loved the movie (Score:4, Interesting)
NASA of Then v. NASA of Today (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:NASA of Then v. NASA of Today (Score:5, Interesting)
the same respect as back then."
Those of us who were around back then remember it being no less controversial, with just as much skepticism, and the same low regard from the Republicans over a program that was pressed by Democrats.
The main mitigating factor was the idea that the space program would help stem the tide of Communism.
The space age had an enormous impact on popular culture, but the politics were pretty much the same.
I worked for Grumman... (Score:5, Interesting)
My favorite was that they (Grumman) got everyone who had anything to do with the program rounded up, put in a large room, and then they put an armed guard at the door. You could leave to go to the bathroom, that was it. They all stayed in there working on solutions and answering questions until Apollo landed, and apparently noone even complained.(Try that these days!)
Also it was a tradition at Grumman to point to the LEM and what it did, and how well it was made. It set a very high standard that we were all expected to live up to, and were often reminded of.
It confuses amps and watts. (Score:1, Interesting)
No, that's the amount of *current* a vacuum cleaner *might* use. It says nothing about its power at all.
I'm such a pedant.
Design and Materials then and now (Score:4, Interesting)
From what I gather, the guys in mission control had to jump through many hoops to get things to work after the explosion, but firstly, they had practiced almost every possible problem, (the use of LM power to run the mission shortly after launch although it was blocked because of dead CM batteries and the CO2 filters which were recognised as necessary immediatley by one guy as soon as he heard the LM was to be used).
The design and materials were extremely primitive by today's standards, but relays are a lot easier to reconfigure than a modern computer chip and the simplicity of the filters meant that with basic materials they could be reconfigured.
In other words, the machines were vastly more robust than modern systems.
And then there's the planning. They had actually taken, although not seriously enough initially, but later someone had decided to check that contingency out all the same.
With the shuttles, there has never been a way to fix anything if the machine would fuck up in orbit. Nada. Costs too much. And what really absolutely amazes me is that NASA, that spends around $400 million on a single shuttle launch never thought about renting or buying 2 or 3 Russian Soyuz craft to be ready on a permanent basis in case something happened in orbit, and that even though Soyuz launches only cost a tiny fraction of shuttle launches, are far easier and faster to prepare and launch, and don't even cost much at all if they aren't launched and everything goes well.
And no one, even after Challenger in 86, thought about checking out the shuttle regularly in orbit.
In some ways, it's almost criminal neglect. What happened to NASA?