|
|
Author
|
Topic: If there had been an Apollo 11 scrub...
|
taneal1 Member Posts: 237 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 06-15-2017 02:10 AM
Paine obviously had some concerns that the astronauts would push too hard to make the landing or he would not have made the offer at all. If the 11 or 12 crews didn't believe Paine they would have said "It was a nice gesture, but I doubt it would have happened." To my knowledge, no one on either crew said this, and they've certainly had adequate time to think about this.Imagine if 11 aborted due to the computer problems and it was determined that they should have been allowed to continue. I think the entire crew would have been knocking on Paine's door. The press didn't know of Paine's offer, but under the above circumstances, they would certainly have asked them if they would like to go back to the moon and try it again. If Paine said "Sorry, I didn't really mean it," imagine the always outspoken Buzz Aldrin keeping silent. Would NASA really want the headlines that would result? I doubt the astronauts would have done as Dick Gordon said and walked out. When Swigert replaced Mattingly, proper procedure was to replace the entire crew. No one squawked. Engle was replaced by Schmitt. Cernan and Evans didn't like it but they went along with it. Astronauts who would be shifted to a later mission would still keep their seats. Would they risk losing their flights? At the time of Apollo 11, not all of the crews had been assigned and I can't imagine unassigned astronauts would join Gordon. If assigned crews walked out, these guys would now have a chance at a flight. My two cents says there would have been loud grumbles and the Apollo 11 crew would fly Apollo 12. It the 12 crew quit over this, then later flights would continue as assigned. Finally, Paine was concerned that astronauts would not abort when they should have. If 11 failed, and Paine reneged, 12 would now be the first landing flight, and Paine couldn't promise them the next flight if they aborted, so he would still be concerned. |
Rusty53 Member Posts: 50 From: Rochester, NY USA Registered: Jun 2010
|
posted 06-15-2017 10:47 AM
This is what Thomas Paine said in his NASA Oral History interview: As you know, I've made it a practice to go down to the Cape and talk to the fellows before every mission in an informal way, just making sure that they don't have any possible reservation that they've hesitated to bring up with Deke [Slayton] or Chris [Kraft] or Bob Gilruth, Rocco [Petrone], Sam Phillips (in his day)- just to make sure that they know they have this channel. Nothing has ever been turned up in these meetings. I always made one other point with them, and that was to urge them to feel free at any time, if they didn't feel comfortable with the way the mission was progressing even if they couldn't put their finger on all the specifics, to feel very comfortable about aborting the mission. And I've assured them that in the event that they made a decision to bring the ship back prematurely, that if they then requested the opportunity to fly on another mission immediately afterwards — I won't say the next flight, but immediately afterwards-that I would see to it that we bent all the rules and gave them this opportunity. |
taneal1 Member Posts: 237 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 06-17-2017 12:17 AM
That's a definitive statement right up until he states "I won't say the next flight, but immediately afterwards." Isn't the flight that's immediately afterwards, the next flight? I don't think he's saying, the second flight after the aborted flight... |
Rusty53 Member Posts: 50 From: Rochester, NY USA Registered: Jun 2010
|
posted 06-17-2017 09:49 PM
It seems that Paine is actually clarifying what he meant by his first "immediately afterwards" by emphasizing "I won't say the next flight..." It makes no sense for him to then contradict himself with his second "immediately afterwards." It would be as if he said "I wouldn't give them the very next flight, but I would give them the very next flight." That statement would be illogical. |
Headshot Member Posts: 891 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-21-2017 08:23 AM
I interpret Paine's comments to mean that if Apollo 11 did not land, and the crew requested to be put back into flight contention, he would have them assigned not to Apollo 12, but to Apollo 13. e.g. not the next flight but the one immediately thereafter. Of course this statement, applied to subsequent lunar flights, would be invalid for Apollo 16 and Apollo 17. Perhaps he had some other scenario in mind for 16. |
Rusty53 Member Posts: 50 From: Rochester, NY USA Registered: Jun 2010
|
posted 06-21-2017 09:01 AM
Paine only made his offer to the Apollo 11 and 12 crews. According to Jim Lovell, he was not offered that option. |
David C Member Posts: 1039 From: Lausanne Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 06-21-2017 10:27 AM
Paine resigned from NASA in September 1970 and was succeeded by Fletcher. Pretty obviously he couldn't make offers to crews from Apollo 14 onwards. |
Rusty53 Member Posts: 50 From: Rochester, NY USA Registered: Jun 2010
|
posted 06-21-2017 12:34 PM
No crews were offered a "redo" after Apollo 12, not even 13, which flew while Paine was still on the job so obviously he didn't intend to continue his offer past the first two landing attempts — even if he had stayed on through the end of Apollo. |
taneal1 Member Posts: 237 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 06-22-2017 01:18 AM
quote: Originally posted by Headshot: I interpret Paine's comments to mean that if Apollo 11 did not land, and the crew requested to be put back into flight contention, he would have them assigned not to Apollo 12, but to Apollo 13.
Paine's statement is at best ambiguous, and in my opinion, actually contradictory. But, assuming he meant they would get Apollo 13, but not 12, I have to wonder why he wouldn't offer them 12? Obviously they had just completed training on 11, and would still have several months to train in the Apollo 12 spacecraft.The Apollo 11 crew was going to get the first landing. Undoubtedly a big deal for any astronaut. Paine wanted them to be cautious, and not allow being first to overrule good judgement. If he offered them the second landing as compensation (Apollo 12 would get the first landing), and the first landing was actually as important to them as Paine thinks it may have been, this offer would have no effect on their judgement. Also, by bumping them to Apollo 13, they would have to put in another nine months of training before flying. Only re-assignment to Apollo 12 would accomplish Paine's good intentions. Also, how do you justify the Apollo 12 crew keeping its launch date for no discernible reason, and every other crew getting pushed back six months or so? If he was reassigned to 13, what a change that would have been for Neil's status. Three flights: three failed missions! Imagine the delight of the "Neil-Knockers," e.g. Armstrong "screwing up" an X-15 flight by bouncing off the atmosphere during re-entry. As Bill Dana said, "The only reason this didn't happen to anyone else was because it happened to Neil first." They didn't think that would happen under those conditions. They learned, and it didn't happen again. At some time or other in their careers, they all did something that didn't look good. For example, long-time "Neil-Knocker" Chuck Yeager and his F-104 flight. If you haven't read Bob Smith's evaluation of this event, then you only know Yeager's fabrication. |
David C Member Posts: 1039 From: Lausanne Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 06-22-2017 03:48 AM
quote: Originally posted by taneal1: Also, how do you justify the 12 crew keeping its launch date for no discernible reason, and every other crew getting pushed back 6 months or so?
Easy, Kennedy's deadline. The program wasn't being run for the individual glory of astronauts. quote: If you haven't read Bob Smith's evaluation of this event, then you only know Yeager's fabrication.
Ain't that the truth, but a lot of people prefer myth to fact. |
taneal1 Member Posts: 237 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 06-22-2017 10:55 AM
quote: Originally posted by David C: Easy, Kennedy's deadline.
Putting the 11 crew on 12 wouldn't delay the first landing. And no matter which flight you give to 11, all crews downstream of their re-assigned flight are postponed one mission. So why not delay ALL the crews equally?If you put the 11 crew on 13, the crews after 11 are gonna be pissed that the 11 crew gets a 2nd try, AND because the 12 crew keeps their mission when everyone else is delayed. There's no reason to put the 11 crew on 13 instead of 12, so why add fuel to the fire? quote: The program wasn't being run for the individual glory of astronauts.
Tell that to Al Shepard and Gus Grissom. ![](http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/biggrin.gif) |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-22-2017 11:02 AM
Whether it was offered or not, I have a hard time believing that Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins would agree to taking the flight of an already announced crew. I can see them wanting to try again, but I believe they would have opted for the next open flight, which would have been Apollo 13 (the Apollo 13 and Apollo 14 crews were announced on Aug. 6, 1969). |
moorouge Member Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 06-23-2017 01:43 AM
Just a minor query Robert. Is there a difference between when the 13 and 14 crews were told privately they had a flight and when the public announcement was made? A private understanding that these crews had been given a flight might have caused a few problems if the '11' crew had to be slotted in for a re-try. There were only a few days between the success of '11' being assured and the August announcement referenced by you. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-23-2017 06:45 PM
Jim Lovell describes in "Lost Moon" that Deke Slayton approached him before the assignments were set about switching from Apollo 14 to Apollo 13 to give Alan Shepard more time to train. So there were discussions about crew assignments prior to the public announcements.But, as Lovell also points out, he and Haise were on the Apollo 11 backup crew. So they would still be working support on the ground for Apollo 11 had anything necessitated an abort, such that if anyone was in a position to understand the reason and possibly even expect a re-flight for Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, they were. | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
![](http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/powered_by2.gif)
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
advertisement
|