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."
Are you saying Tom Hanks lied to me? (Score:3, Funny)
My favorite scene (Score:2)
My favorite scene is when Tom Hanks says to the President over the radio to Houston: "I gotta pee", at which point his 55 IQ-lets him open the airlock to step outside. He had that horrid urine problem at least until John Coffee cured it.
404 Page (Score:5, Funny)
Re:404 Page (Score:1)
Re:404 Page (Score:5, Funny)
What we really should do is add onto the existing codes and take the unused 600 section of HTTP codes [suburbancomputer.com] for Slashdot use.
A few that come to mind:
HTTP 600: Nothing For You To See Here
HTTP 601: Dupe
HTTP 602: Is Having Uncompehensibal Splelling Nad Gramer
HTTP 603: Moderator Points Denied
HTTP 604: Profit Not Found
Any others?
I always thought we needed a "420 error" (Score:2)
Anniversaries... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anniversaries... (Score:5, Funny)
Duplicate articles only "every 5 years" would be a great improvement.
Re:Anniversaries... (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps, but sadly unlikely because the Apollo mission controllers are beginning to pass away at an increasing rate. At lot of them are still in good health, but Sy Liebergot has a list of deceased controllers in his 2003 autobiography, Apollo EECOM [apolloeecom.com] that's a page long, and he's said recently that if he released a second edition he'd have to add another bunch of names already: for example, Don Puddy, who played a key role in the post Apollo-10 sim lifeboat procedures team, passed away last November.
Questioning the validity of the "new stuff" (Score:2, Insightful)
asked within 5 years: good informative details
asked after 5-10 years: less details: you'd have more if you asked earlier
asked after 10-15 years: way less details: you'd have much more if you asked earlier
asked after 15-20 years: refuses to answer: this is pointless, you should have asked me when it was fresh in my mind
asked after 20-25 years: refuses to answer
asked after 25-30 years: refuses to answer
asked after 30-35
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.
Re:Anniversaries... (Score:5, Funny)
But this is Slashdot, and nothing seems to be impossible here ;-)
Now *that*s a cool hack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now *that*s a cool hack! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Now *that*s a cool hack! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now *that*s a cool hack! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now *that*s a cool hack! (Score:3, Informative)
Not to mention, we're (probably) not talking a simple "scroll down a bunch of pages and replace appropriate variables." While I'm pretty sure they weren't forced to use punch cards to program the simulation, we're still talking about mid-to-late 60's technology here, even if it was state-of-the-art for its time.
Re:Yes but... (Score:2)
Why do people still deny the moon landing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we're looking at Mars, but there's only so much duct tape we can wrap around these shuttles. I wish some of the enthusiasm and can-do attitude towards space that we had in the early days would return so that this next trek could be adequately funded and researched.
Re:Why do people still deny the moon landing? (Score:1)
Instead we had Dan Goldin, whose main concern was writing fancy speeches and making sure employees used the correct NASA letterhead on memos.
Re:Why do people still deny the moon landing? (Score:2)
Conspiracy sells especially to lameOs.
Because we didn't! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Because we didn't! (Score:3, Funny)
--
Shitram Brown, PhD
Professor of Mathematics
All I can say is it's a good thing you went for math and not astronomy.
why not a flag on the moon?
Gooooooooooooooooooooooogle [google.com]
Re:Because we didn't! (Score:2)
(I have seen worse real names, though... like Dick Sux and Cox Cable)
-WS
Lighten up folks (Score:2)
He's raising the standard array of moon-hoax objections.
Sadly, they sound about that stupid.
Re:Because we didn't! (Score:2)
The more interesting question to me is, what was there to film the Lunar Module's liftoff from the surface of the moon, and aimed the camera upwards as it left? Though I doubt anyone would be so stupid as to make a hoax and forget that detail.
Re:Because we didn't! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why do people still deny the moon landing? (Score:1)
Re:Why do people still deny the moon landing? (Score:2)
And for a new apartment complex where a relative now lives, when they were still building (i.e. before bricks and such were placed over the frame) it the construction guys had spray-painted the floor numbers on the concrete exterior so they knew which floor their outdoor lift was at. 13 had actually been painted on initially, but then "crossed off" and
Re:Why do people still deny the moon landing? (Score:3, Funny)
Since I'm too young... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Since I'm too young... (Score:2)
Re:Since I'm too young... (Score:5, Informative)
It's important to realize how much what-if planning work was done up front, before Apollo 13, so that during the accident, the controllers weren't just making it all up as they went along. In particular, the efforts of the lunar module controllers in this regard are absent from the movie, as are a lot of other key contributions.
Other issues: the CSM power-up sequence was not devised primarily under astronaut Ken Mattingly's auspices, but under EECOM John Aaron. Nor did Mattingly come up with the idea of running power back into the CSM from the LM: Bob Legler, a LM controller, came up with that idea months previously. In the movie, the crew were thrown around by the oxygen tank explosion: in fact it took a few minutes for everyone to realise something very serious had happened. And Kranz never said "Failure is not an option!"
Re:Since I'm too young... (Score:2)
OK people, what's still good? (Score:2)
I use this saying when helping someone with a very initial debugging and it seems it is not possible to get a program running without crashing or lockup.
By the way, NOVA did an Apollo 13 show with extensive interviews of Jim Lovell and Gene Kranz -- much like the Beatles documentary that gave a lot of airtime to George Martin -- and I never saw the need to
Re:Since I'm too young... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Since I'm too young... (Score:2, Troll)
ummmm.......
The Contrail?
In actuality:
You sick capitalists and your NASA idolatry (Score:5, Funny)
You bourgeois capitalist Amerikan's make me sick; stealing surpluss labor from the masses for your precious French perfume. BAH! Against the brick wall for you!
*bang!*
Re:You sick capitalists and your NASA idolatry (Score:2, Informative)
So much more interesting than the Hollywood drivel (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So much more interesting than the Hollywood dri (Score:2)
However, joe public would not have understood, and woudl have simply turned off. Hence the dramatisation, and dumbing down, in the movie.
MBAs loved the movie (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:MBAs loved the movie (Score:2)
There must be a PHB reference in there somewhere.
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.
Re:NASA of Then v. NASA of Today (Score:2)
To be fair to NASA, there isn't much you can do in the two shuttle cases. The by the time the problems were obvious in the two shuttle disaster it was too late to do anything. In this case there was time to figure out what was wrong after it went wrong. I don't know if there is anything they could have inspected to see and prevent this problem in Apollo 13, but is wasn't near as serious as the Shuttle disasters.
Apollo 13 had several minutes of thinking this was another minor issue before they realize
For a great overview, see this book by Kranz (Score:5, Informative)
Gene Kranz (the guy with the serious crewcut) tells the whole story of how they got to the point to where the "geeks" could make a life and death difference in this situation, and then how they managed to pull it off. Its a great study of real engineering by real engineers under incredible time pressure, with the lives of people and the hopes of the nation in their hands.
Re:For a great overview, see this book by Kranz (Score:2)
Ahh, the good old days.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ahh, the good old days.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You think it was all "peaceful scientific exploration"? Wanna see a list of weaponry that was developed in those days?
Re:Ahh, the good old days.... (Score:2)
Don't put words in my mouth: I never said that (I'm not naive). However, there was a mixture back then...and there ain't now.
Re:Ahh, the good old days.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ahh, the good old days.... (Score:2)
Yup, nuthin' good ever came of better weapon system.
Re:Ahh, the good old days.... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:I worked for Grumman... (Score:2)
You probably worked with the neighbor who lived across the street when I was growing up - last name Palmari. One of the big wigs on the LEM team from what I understand, also worked on the F-14, and the A-6 TRAM projects
Re:I worked for Grumman... (Score:2)
Anyone would work that long (Score:2)
I have to agree with the other anonymous coward: most people would have worked night and day in that situation.
I'd ask anyone who would not willingly do the same without complaint to remove themselves from the human population, but such a person doesn't exist (though a few might claim they would when not in that position) so there is no point.
Re:Anyone would work that long (Score:2)
Sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
All those Apollo anniversaries make me sad. 35 years is my whole life, I was born the same year Apollo 13 made its epic return to Earth. And what happened through my whole life with space exploration? Are we further than we were in 1970? All that's left from the grand dreams of the period are some old shuttles, that make news when they fly at all, a space station which we wouldn't be able to operate without Russian (paid) help and a huge, costly government agency that produces lots of nice animations, small droids and very, very little substance - and tons of SF movies. In our silver screen dreams we have already conquered whole galaxy, in reality we hardly moved.
I know it's a harsh judgment. But technologically speaking we could have been walking on Mars a decade ago, we could have been visiting Moon regularly, we could have been sending dozens of automated probes each year not just a few. Isn't that sad?
I think it is each time I have to ask myself: will I live long enough to see anything to even match, let alone outshine Apollo achievements?
Re:Sad... (Score:2, Insightful)
What was it, a single single failure in over 30 years?
Technology really is moving backwards.
Re:Sad... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Missing the forest for the trees... (Score:2)
I of course watch private endeavors into space very closely, and I think I agree with you more than you think. I see private rocketeers and China's advancement into space as two most promising factors nowadays. I even go around advising younger people to get into space industry, because I think it will be hot within ten years or so.
But we are discussing here in a certain context and that is of Apollo 13's anniversary. And with focus on human space flight, which is obvious within that context I wrote my (r
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Missing the forest for the trees... (Score:2)
What I hope we will see in the next 20 years is something that will make space economically feasible, t
Re:Sad... (Score:2)
NASA is involved with a whole lot of substantial research; you just need to look beyond the manned program to see it. Things like Gravity Probe B, the Mars rovers, Cassini-Huygens, Hubble, Chandra, etc. do far more to advance actual science than Apollo (or any other manned mission, for that matter) ever did -- and at far lower cost.
I mourn with you the loss of the spirit of adventure embodi
Its the same old story (Score:2)
Back when we first quit the migratory life to farm we made a lot of great strides, but what has changed since then? We still grow the same corn. Sure we have tractors now, but even they have not advanced in years again.
There are points in time where everything comes together and makes what seems like giant leaps. However they are not as much as they seem. Things have to build for a long time before the technology is ready for the leap. Then we make the leap quick, and have to settle down because th
Re:Its the same old story (Score:2)
Wanna make a bet on that?
The varieties of corn grown today are quite different than those grown 30 years ago. Typically producing two medium length ears per stalk rather than one long ear. The rows of corn are planted closer together. The plants within a row are spaced more closely. The varieties used today are more tolerant of this high density planting. Some varieties have been genetically engineere
Re:Its the same old story (Score:2)
Yes, but none of that is near the advance seen when civilization moved from hunter gathers following the wild (not domestic) herds to farming in the first place.
Re:Sad... (Score:2)
I don't assume that. On the contrary, I'm acutely aware that the social issues are mainly responsible for the current state of affairs I was referring to.
Maybe I should point out that my little comment was by no means meant to be a balanced, well researched overview of NASA activities and US space effort in general. I was expressing my feelings [wikipedia.org] in relation to this particular
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?
What always bothers me... (Score:2)
Re:What always bothers me... (Score:2, Informative)
The skin was too thin, too fragile and far too ineffective to be used over the whole shuttle. If it had been, the disaster might never have happened. Which indicates that once NASA had the skin, they didn't put enough funds into R&D to improve on it.
The first shuttle explosion was al
10th anniversary of Apollo 13 movie (Score:3, Informative)
This year marks the 35th anniversary of Apollo 13, but it's also the 10th anniversary of Ron Howard's "Apollo 13".
There's an Apollo 13 Anniversary Edition DVD [apollo13dvd.com] out, which includes the IMAX version!
There's more info at IMDB [imdb.com] and Google Reviews [google.com].
Good quote:
Best Book (Score:2)
The best book on the Apollo 13 mission is 13: The Flight That Failed [amazon.com] by Henry S. F. Cooper. (The link is to Amazon.com.)
I first read it in 1972, when it was first released. If you're interested in understanding the Apollo program, this book may be the best place to start. Telling the story of Apollo 13, Cooper introduces the flight controllers and explains how they work together. He provides a foundation for understanding ANY Apollo mission.
The official NASA line was always that we had detailed plans re
Re:True geeks (Score:5, Insightful)
What I loved about the movie "Apollo 13" was that it celebrated the true heroism exhibited by the "geeks" at NASA. I remember reading editorials from feminist man-haters whining about how all the men in the movie were, well, men, and white men, which is somehow worse. That kind of criticism really made me ill. I felt really sorry for the kind of person who would attack a movie for being sexist or even cheuvanist simply because it shows a group of white men being heroes, even if it is historically accurate.
It's not often you see a group of actual, Coke-bottle-glasses, pocket-protector, polyester-pants GEEKS acting in concert to save lives presented in movies these days. (Usually they are sexed-up CSI-types. Yeah, sure.) But damnit, those boys (and girls) at NASA really do have people's lives in their hands, and each and every successful, boring old manned mission is a tremendous risk and a testament to the genius and sheer balls of the American Nerd.
Re:True geeks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:True geeks (Score:3, Funny)
Re:True geeks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:True geeks (Score:2)
Re:True geeks (Score:2, Informative)
Re:True geeks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:True geeks (Score:2)
Re:True geeks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's all fiction anyways (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's all fiction anyways (Score:2)
Not quite... Actually, it's the glare of the lunar landscape. The terrain is so bright that it completely drowns out the stars. If you stood on the Moon and pointed the camera at the sky, with no land in the frame, you could photograph stars, but the astronauts were more interested in photographing the Moon and themselves on it - something new - rather than the same stars we see every night from Ear
Re:It's all fiction anyways (Score:2)
> so shitty?
A Nikon F wasn't shitty then, and it's not at all bad today.
Since everybody is scrambling for digital cameras and nobody cares about film anymore, you can get great cameras and lenses for cheap now.
Nikon F? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/
Re:Nikon F? (Score:2)
Re:It's all fiction anyways (Score:2, Informative)
Civilians are normally denied access to secure military areas. I'm sure your Senator wouldn't be allowed to wander around the Pentagon either, but I can't regard this as evidence of a big secret conspiracy.
Re:It's all fiction anyways (Score:2)
Re:It's all fiction anyways (Score:2)
Re:It's all fiction anyways (Score:2)
if drugs worked... Re:It's all fiction anyways (Score:2)
Re:It's all fiction anyways (Score:2, Insightful)
And Ive been told that if you went on to do degree level physics and chemistry, you are pretty
Re:It's all fiction anyways (Score:2)
This is a bit extreme, but the fact is that what you learn is still helpful even though it may be "wrong" from a precise standard.
Re:a...hem, lem (Score:2)
Re:a...hem, lem (Score:2)
Don't know why -- maybe to save ink, for all I know -- but LM is the correct terminology for the actual lunar flight era. Cute graphics on integrated circuits aside.
Re:Wow, there are still people who actually believ (Score:2)
It's the same people who measure the distance variations between the earth and moon by hitting the laser targets left on the moon.
They did leave the reflectors behind.