
“Houston, We've Had a Problem” (1975) - skbohra123
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-350/ch-13-1.html
======
tdicola
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-
armstr...](http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/neil-armstrong-at-
the-helm-120730.htm)). 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...](http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html)

~~~
gumby
> 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.

~~~
neurotech1
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)

------
ColinWright
I was honored to have dinner with Ken Mattingly a couple of years ago, and am
looking forward to meeting Jim Lovell later this year. I've now met and talked
with five Apollo era astronauts, and they are genuinely amazing. True
gentlemen with wonderful stories, and self-deprecating. All amazingly skillful
with hundreds of thousands of hours of technical training. And all different
in their own way - all individuals.

And all slightly embarrassed because they were just doing their jobs, and
little or no credit is given to the hundreds of thousands of people on the
ground who did their jobs and made it possible.

~~~
dalke
"And Houston, as I step off at the surface at Taurus- Littrow, I'd like to
dedicate the first step of Apollo 17 to all those who made it possible." \-
Gene Cernan

------
progers7
If you enjoyed this story, I recommend "The Martian" by Andy Weir. It reads
like it was written by an engineer (it was) and is a thoroughly researched,
fun read.

------
FlannelPancake
> With the wisdom of hindsight, I should have said, "Hold it. Wait a second.
> I'm riding on this spacecraft. Just go out and replace that tank."

That's crazy. I didn't realize the tank was acting funny before they even took
off. To me, the risk-adverse non-astronaut, that seems like something that
would've triggered big ominous "DANGER" signs going off in my head.

I guess that's the benefit of hindsight, though.

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
Anything that complex _always_ will have things acting funny.

~~~
FlannelPancake
Heh, that's fair.

------
perfTerm
I didn't particularly notice the background pattern but cycling through that
story was really a great read. To put yourself in those shoes really had me
going. Absolutely amazing what these young men did.

------
peeters
> Since Apollo 13 many people have asked me, "Did you have suicide pills on
> board?"

I would have to imagine that if the circumstances made it obvious that
returning to Earth was impossible, the astronauts probably would have chosen
to end their days on the surface of the moon. Assuming the LM could land with
three on board.

~~~
mikeash
Buzz Aldrin was asked how he would spend his last hours alive on the moon if
the ascent engine had failed to light and left them stranded.

His reply was that he would spend that time trying to fix the engine.

I don't think they ever would have given up like that. You keep trying things
to save it until you're dead, even if it's obvious that you're not going to
make it.

~~~
jschwartzi
To me, it's more important to realize that you're never not going to make it.
You're either trying to make it or you've already failed.

------
Nomentatus
The Apollo 13 explosion turned out to be a magnificent example of "false
redundancy". By packing the three (supposedly redundant) fuel cells tightly
together, NASA actually tripled the chance of losing all power. They now had
three fuses that might be the wrong wattage. (As I remember what I've read,
someone got but never read a memo that the fuse wattage had been changed in
the fuel cell design - the memo was found speared with many others in an
unread pile after the accident.) Reading the details of Musk's designs his
team really does seem to understand what redundancy is and is not. It's all
too easy to get wrong.

------
rzzzt
There's a very nicely presented transcript of this mission (and others) on
spacelog.

[http://apollo13.spacelog.org/](http://apollo13.spacelog.org/)

------
tantalor
Do people put these background patterns behind text expressly to hamper
legibility?

~~~
im3w1l
According to a comment in the source, the page seems to be from 2001, when
people didn't know better. Also look at that tell-tale footer!

~~~
makeitsuckless
> "when people didn't know better"

My god, what do you think 2001 was, the stone age?

~~~
tajen
When i hear "the startup bubble of 2001", I always take a moment to imagine
what was a startup in 2001. I imagine an HTML 2 page with no Javascript and an
ad banner at the top, inlined styles and <blink> tags... Like Altavista or
Yahoo.

So in truth, what were webpages before 2006?

~~~
ColinWright
My site is still pretty much as I originally had it in the mid to late 1990s:
[http://www.solipsys.co.uk](http://www.solipsys.co.uk)

Didn't know better then, don't know better now. Still prefer content over
style.

~~~
keithpeter
[http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/DistanceToTheMoon.html](http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/DistanceToTheMoon.html)

OK, I'm intrigued and will be thinking about that one when I'm getting my
students into their exam on Monday...

[http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/](http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/)

1992 style. See html comments for the reasons...

~~~
ams6110
I still see a lot of web pages like that among computer science academics,
especially those who are of "pre-internet" generations. E.g [http://www-cs-
faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/](http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/)

