Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Mercury - Gemini - Apollo
  Apollo 13: Recycling the crew for another flight

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Apollo 13: Recycling the crew for another flight
Headshot
Member

Posts: 1096
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 11-07-2013 04:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Was any reason given for not recycling the Apollo 13 crew to the Apollo 14 mission? After the Apollo 13 mission ended, there were still six planned lunar landing missions left (the J-4 and H-4 missions had not yet been cancelled) and the decision was made by May to land Apollo 14 at Apollo 13's original target of Fra Mauro.

Alan Shepard and his crew could have been bumped to the J-4 Apollo 15. It seemed wasteful to train Shepard's crew for something Jim Lovell's crew had already trained.

I am just curious to find out if anyone knows anything concrete about this.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 48697
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 11-07-2013 05:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Did the Apollo 13 crew want to fly again so soon after narrowly making it back to Earth?

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1096
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 11-07-2013 06:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A good question, but we'll probably never know for certain since Jim Lovell and company were never actually offered another flight and did not have the opportunity to make the decision.

Of course an even thornier issue would have been, if a reflight was offered to Lovell, would his crew have included Jack Swigert or Ken Mattingly?

Skylon
Member

Posts: 312
From:
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 11-07-2013 06:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Skylon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jim Lovell had stated his intention to retire after Apollo 13 (even though he did stick around until Apollo concluded).

Deke Slayton showed also little interest in sending Jack Swigert back to the Moon as command module pilot — not because Swigert did a bad job, but because Slayton seems to have felt guilty that Swigert got thrown into the flight at the last minute, only to have it nearly kill him. Sending him back to the Moon to orbit it, didn't seem fair. It's part of why Slayton considered giving him another shot on ASTP.

That leaves just Fred Haise for another Apollo flight.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 11-08-2013 08:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Recycling the Apollo 13 crew would pose problems assuming they all wanted to fly again so soon and that Slayton and NASA management agreed with that — the Apollo 14 crew hadn't trained on the rover if they were bumped to Apollo 15 and it wouldn't have been fair to the crews in training.

Personally, I would have liked to see Haise put on Apollo 14 as lunar module pilot.

Gonzo
Member

Posts: 598
From: Holland, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2012

posted 11-08-2013 11:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Gonzo   Click Here to Email Gonzo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Headshot:
A good question, but we'll probably never know for certain...
There are an untold number of things that have happened behind the scenes that we will never know about. I suspect (although I have no proof of such) that it's entirely possible that they were never offered the flight because it was known from behind the scenes discussions that they didn't want to face that kind of decision. Whether they would ultimately accept it was irrelevant.

That is, having just returned from such a harrowing flight, they may not have wanted to face the possibility of having to make the decision to do it again. So by not even offering, there was no (public) decision to make. No embarrassment for turning it down (had they done so) and no reason for NASA to "save face" by offering it to them.

Delta7
Member

Posts: 1682
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 11-08-2013 07:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Delta7   Click Here to Email Delta7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lovell was quoted as saying something to the effect that he'd "feel the pain of a million stab wounds" from his fellow astronauts if he went for flight number five, not to mention a third lunar trip.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 11-08-2013 08:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I can't imagine Al Shepard accepting a delay or being bumped from going to the moon.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1096
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 11-09-2013 07:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Al Shepard, despite his connections, did not run NASA, nor even Apollo. Being assigned to a lunar flight was an honor, not a right. If he fussed too much, especially over something so trivial as a delayed mission, Paine had the authority and mentality to take him off the crew. Shepard knew this and did not fuss when his crew was switched from his originally assigned Apollo 13 to 14.

True, it might have upset Slayton and one or two other astronauts, had Shepard made a fuss and been canned, but Paine was their boss too. Slayton even admits there were many other astronauts who believed (correctly or incorrectly) that Shepard had unfairly jumped to the head of the flight eligibility line. Any one of them would have gladly filled Shepard's open slot if Paine had removed him from the crew.

Al Shepard, above all, wanted to walk on the moon and I do not believe he cared one wit if it happened on Apollo 13, 14 or 15.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1096
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 07-06-2022 08:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Does anyone know if NASA ever considered assigning the Apollo 13 crew of Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swigert (or Ken Mattingly) to fly Apollo 14? Was this possibility ever discussed with Lovell?

Since 14 was re-targeted for a landing at Fra Mauro, and the crew for 13 had already trained extensively to explore that area, it seems like a waste to have to train the 14 crew do do something for which the 13 crew was already prepared. Then Alan Shepard, Ed Mitchell, and Stu Roosa could have flown on the next Apollo.

Any thoughts?

Editor's note: Threads merged.

Tom
Member

Posts: 1646
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 07-06-2022 08:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tom   Click Here to Email Tom     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think the astronaut wives had a lot to do with the decision that was made.

carmelo
Member

Posts: 1087
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 07-07-2022 10:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for carmelo   Click Here to Email carmelo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Purely academic question (yes, I know that Jim wanted that Apollo 13 was his last mission):

In your opinions, if Lovell had wanted would have Skylab 4? Note that Pete Conrad (commander Skylab 2) and Alan Bean (commander Skylab 3) had flown on Apollo 12 only five months before Lovell on Apollo 13.

Space Cadet Carl
Member

Posts: 292
From: Lake Orion, MI
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 07-07-2022 12:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Space Cadet Carl   Click Here to Email Space Cadet Carl     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tom:
I think the astronaut wives had a lot to do with the decision that was made.
I'm not sure about that. In 1960's and early 1970's America, the men totally called the shots 95% of the time.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1096
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 07-07-2022 07:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Somewhat true, but do no forget that some of the active astronauts were already married to their SECOND wives.

Spacepsycho
Member

Posts: 881
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004

posted 07-09-2022 12:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spacepsycho   Click Here to Email Spacepsycho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Speaking to multiple astronauts and sim trainers in Downey and Houston, Shepard was way over his head and deeply behind the training curve when he was assigned to 13. During the rush to get Shepard up to speed, Ed Mitchell, Lousma, McCandless, Fullerton and others worked very hard to get him where he needed to be.

Again, speaking to NAA sim guys who trained every Apollo crew, it was clearly obvious that Shepard would not be ready to fly 13, so the decision was made to bump the crew to 14.

Three NAA gentlemen I've spoken with at length told me they absolutely hated working with Shepard. I have a NAA photo showing the 14 crew in the CM sim with this gentleman and he said Shepard made the entire sim team miserable. His exact words were "we loved working with every crew, there were minor differences along the way, buy the only astronaut that everyone deeply disliked and hated working with was Shepard... he was an absolute asshole to everyone."

There's no way Shepard could or should have flown on any mission after 14. He was barely competent to fly 13/14, if it wasn't for Mitchell and all of the backup and support crew working with Shepard, he would/should have been watching the mission from MCC.

Lastly, McDivitt was offered the LM Pilot slot with Shepard commanding, he turned down the chance to walk on the moon, specifically because he wouldn't fly with him. That's pretty telling when one of the most respected, highly competent and hard working astronauts in the program refuse to fly with you.

Jonnyed
Member

Posts: 563
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014

posted 07-09-2022 01:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jonnyed   Click Here to Email Jonnyed     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wonder if another reason for not recycling the crew is consideration for radiation exposure and crossing over and operating past the Van Allen radiation belts?

The radiation dose is not trivial and Lovell had already gone twice.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1096
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 07-09-2022 03:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That radiation aspect is an excellent point.

I too recall reading stories that Shepard was not an ideal person with which to work and that he made it clear he was not interested in lunar geology or rock sampling.

Shepard and Mitchell did an adequate job of exploration, but Fra Mauro was an exceptional site and I believe that Lovell and Haise would have done far better. This has nothing to do with not finding the edge of Cone crater, but the quality of the lunar surface imagery, the real-time verbal descriptions, and the selection of the returned rock samples were all merely so, so.

Spacepsycho
Member

Posts: 881
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004

posted 07-09-2022 06:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spacepsycho   Click Here to Email Spacepsycho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jonnyed:
I wonder if another reason for not recycling the crew is consideration for radiation exposure. The radiation dose is not trivial and Lovell had already gone twice.
Excellent point, I've never heard if any of the lunar missions carried radiation badges or blank film to detect cosmic particles. There's the famous flashing in the eyes, while astronauts tried to sleep on the moon, that turned out to be cosmic particle hitting the optic nerve.

There were cosmic/solar radiation particle detectors on Apollo 16 and 17, I don't remember the results of the experiments but I do recall that the less shielding was better for the astronauts. When the cosmic/solar particles hit thicker metal, they would split up and scatter, kinda like a shotgun, so the less shielding meant the astronauts were hit with one particle rather than dozens.

In my opinion, if the Apollo 13 crew was offered the Apollo 14 mission, they would have jumped at the chance to fly it. Mattingly would have been the command module pilot and Swigert would have gone back to 16 if he wanted it. What's a little radiation when compared to the opportunity to walk on the moon.

I'd volunteer for a one-way Mars trip to set up a habitat for future missions. What a way to spend the last years of your life, benefiting human space exploration and doing it on a budget. Plus, just imagine how much my insurance cover would sell for.

NukeGuy
Member

Posts: 90
From: Irvine, CA USA
Registered: May 2014

posted 07-09-2022 08:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for NukeGuy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The dose rates for the Apollo lunar flights were on the order of 2 Rem (as I remember). Nuclear plant workers are legally limited an annual dose of 5 Rem but very few get more than about 2-3 REM. So I doubt radiation exposure was a consideration for recycling flight crews.

Jonnyed
Member

Posts: 563
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014

posted 07-10-2022 12:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jonnyed   Click Here to Email Jonnyed     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You are confusing a lot of things and your numbers don't agree with other studies.

First, dose rate is not the same as dose — which is what you are citing. Dose rate is super important coming through the Van Allen belts. The Apollo astronauts picked up almost 2 Sv's of Van Allen belt radiation (in protons/electrons not fission rad) in just three hours crossing the belts! That dose rate is huge (separate from just dose). You must not conflate that with low-L.E.T. field measurements and regulatory limits on low L.E.T. radiation versus space radiation.

You see, there is NO PARALLEL between GCR (Galactic Cosmic Radiation) and terrestrial radiation (man-made fission flux or medical exposure). Space radiation is high-energy, heavy nuclei radiation — significant impact on brain function and other key considerations — known as "heavy-Z radiation" and also containing high energy protons... it's not your standard alpha, beta, gamma, neutron radiation from fission nor x-rays from medical. And again you must keep straight that GCR is different than Van Allen belt radiation, and to make it even more complex outer space radiation is much different than International Space Station radiation considerations even though ISS doses can still be pretty high compared to Earth nuke workers.

Because of all of this, radiation is one of the critical considerations on a Mars mission and there is even some studies of possible serious cognitive impacts to astronauts from GCR on a lengthy mission such as the Mars trip which takes a good part of a year. Not a parallel at all to nuclear power workers because of the heavy nuclei (HIGH -Z).

You definitely cannot shrug off radiation exposure too quickly — unless you are old and consider the cancer latency period following exposure to be in your favor!

*By the way, females are about one and a half times more sensitive to radiation than males for ionizing radiation cancer inducement so NASA has to consider all this (again though, our female/male study info is based on alpha, beta gamma x-ray studies and not GCR!)

*I don't want to stray too far off topic which is the Apollo 13 crew.

carmelo
Member

Posts: 1087
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 07-10-2022 12:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for carmelo   Click Here to Email carmelo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If Shepard had not been cured in time for Apollo (thank you Tom Stafford), is clear that Lovell, Haise and Mattingly would go to the moon on Apollo 14. But without Shepard in line for flight, who would have been the commander on Apollo 13?

Gordon Cooper was out for his poor training as back crew commander of Apollo 10. So maybe McDivitt?

And if Shepard had been healed two or three year after, would have Apollo 17, one of Skylab missions or ASTP with Slayton?

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1096
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 07-10-2022 04:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I cannot imagine Shepard on Skylab, nor the ASTP. I do not think he would have gone for either. He really wanted to check off that "Walked on the Moon" box.

With Shepard out of the picture, McDivitt would have been the logical choice to lead the Apollo 13 crew. If not him, then Stafford. Either one would have probably been more conscientious about their geology training, set a more positive tone for the crew, and done a better job on the lunar surface.

Captain Apollo
Member

Posts: 325
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 07-11-2022 07:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Captain Apollo   Click Here to Email Captain Apollo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I always feel conflicted by Slayton's handling of Shepard in relation to 13. On one side, it was capricious and resulted in a weaker result for the programme in terms of science at a time when Apollo needed results. On the other hand, his personal loyalty to Shepard added a human dimension that cut across the complaint often made that astronauts were emotionless automata.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3479
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-11-2022 09:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Alan Shepard's attitude towards the geology work is well-known, and it's reasonable to assume that Jim Lovell would have done a better job at Cone Crater, but that's not how things happened.

I am always uncomfortable with this second-guessing of crew selections. The facts remain that Shepard commanded Apollo 14; he landed safely on the Moon; the crew returned safely; and it was a successful mission, thus putting Apollo back on track after the near-disaster of Apollo 13. Who knows what might have happened if we could roll back time and run Apollo 14 again with a different commander?

It's a pity Shepard didn't pay more attention to the geology, but in the final analysis a slightly disappointing sample selection was less important than a successful flight and a safe return.

NukeGuy
Member

Posts: 90
From: Irvine, CA USA
Registered: May 2014

posted 07-11-2022 01:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for NukeGuy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jonnyed:
The Apollo astronauts picked up almost 2 Sv's of Van Allen belt radiation (in protons/electrons not fission rad) in just three hours crossing the belts!
2 Sv is a very high dose. Are you sure about that? Such exposure probably would have resulted in a notable lowering of white blood cell count. It does not appear that this took place.

From the Apollo 14 Mission Report:

The Lunar Module Pilot's personal radiation dosimeter failed to integrate the dosage properly after the first 24 hours of flight. To ensure that each lunar module crewman had a functional dosimeter while on the lunar surface, the Command Module Pilot transferred his unit to the Lunar Module Pilot on the fourth day of the mission. The final readings from the personal radiation dosimeters yielded net integrated (uncorrected) values of 640 and 630 millirads for the Commander and the Command Module Pilot, respectively. No value can be determined for the Lunar Module Pilot. The total radiation dose for each crewman was approximately 1.15 rads to the skin and 0.6 rad at a 5centimeter tissue depth. These doses are the largest observed on any Apollo mission; however, they are well below the threshold of detectable medical effects. The magnitudes of the radiation doses were apparently the result of two factors: (1) The translunar injection trajectory lay closer to the plane of the geomagnetic equator than that of previous flights and, therefore, the spacecraft traveled through the heart of the trapped radiation belts. (2) The space radiation background was greater than previously experienced. Whole-body gamma spectroscopy was also performed postflight on the crew and indicated no cosmic ray induced radioactivity.

Michael Cassutt
Member

Posts: 374
From: Studio City CA USA
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 07-11-2022 02:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Michael Cassutt   Click Here to Email Michael Cassutt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Weighing in late here, probably because I've been on this merry go round before, but Slayton had no intention, no moment of thinking that he ought to recycle Lovell's crew to 14. (And he wasn't going to recycle Armstrong's crew to 12 if there had been a problem, no matter what Tom Paine promised that crew.)

For one thing, he would have wanted the 13 crew to recover physically. Haise returned with some problems.

For another, he had crews lined up and in training. He had maintained since spring 1967 that crews would be assigned but that missions might vary. In essence, "you're in line, you take what's coming." If something went wrong, well, sorry, we're moving on.

I say this being of the mind that Slayton assigning Shepard to 13, then 14 prime, was an error. Should have been Shepard to backup, then prime.

The radiation issue is real, but was not something Slayton ever cited to me.

Michael Cassutt
co-author Deke!, We Have Capture and author The Astronaut Maker

carmelo
Member

Posts: 1087
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 07-11-2022 09:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for carmelo   Click Here to Email carmelo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Has always amazed me that the NASA management had nothing to say on the unbelievable assignment of Shepard to a lunar landing mission.

The fact that they left decide Slayton and Shepard for the assignments to missions without supervising is absurd, as is the fact that one of the guy that decided who went up assigned himself a mission on the moon. And nobody of the management has either checked the quality of the training for a multi milionaire mission (money of taxpayers) on the moon.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1096
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 07-12-2022 09:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It is interesting to note that NASA did not want to waste all the training McDivitt's Apollo crew had undergone (pg 214 of DEKE!), and they were encouraged to voluntarily shift to Apollo 9. But later, the powers that be did not care one iota about wasting Lovell and Haise's training for Fra Mauro.

Of course by then, we had already landed on the Moon.

I guess my question has been answered, no, it was never in the cards for Lovell, Haise, and Roosa to fly Apollo 14 after the Apollo 13 flight. As far as the reason/justification, we will probably never know as all the decision makers have passed on.

Michael Cassutt
Member

Posts: 374
From: Studio City CA USA
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 07-12-2022 10:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Michael Cassutt   Click Here to Email Michael Cassutt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by carmelo:
Has always amazed me that the NASA management had nothing to say on the unbelievable assignment of Shepard to a lunar landing mission.
This is nonsense. Slayton had to submit every crew to MSC Director Gilruth for approval, and then to George Mueller, the assoc admin at HQ. He was supervised, and in fact was overruled at least twice.

Our years-after judgment of Apollo 14 aside, Shepard was highly-regarded as a pilot, test pilot and astronaut. Gilruth selected him to be the first American in space. Slayton and Gilruth and HQ also assigned him as the commander of the first Gemini mission.

Michael Cassutt
Member

Posts: 374
From: Studio City CA USA
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 07-12-2022 03:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Michael Cassutt   Click Here to Email Michael Cassutt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Headshot:
As far as the reason/justification, we will probably never know as all the decision makers have passed on.
As the co-author of DEKE!, let me offer a point of view.

Slayton was concerned about and eager to make use of astronaut training IN THE EARLY APOLLO MISSIONS. Hence his rule about the command module pilot needing to be a flight-experienced astronaut who had gone through a rendezvous or docking.

But by spring 1969, that had changed. Three Apollo missions had confirmed the validity of simulators and training for crews, so Slayton felt confident in assigning rookies as command module pilots: Worden to back up Apollo 12, Mattingly in parallel with Anders backing up Apollo 11, etc.

Slayton was always interested in maximizing crew familiarity and experience, but his plan to recycle the 9 crew in toto was contingent on recyling Borman's crew. That issue was dead even before Apollo 8 flew, following Borman's rejection of a recycle to Apollo 11.

By the time Apollo 9 flew, Slayton was determined to give Scott his own crew, which essentially left McDivitt on the sidelines. (He only wanted to fly again if he had Scott and Schweickart.)

And when it came to events like Apollo 13, he never planned to recycle that crew. For one thing, they had cheated death — and frankly, every launch was cheating death. How many times would he put the same three guys in that position?

He had the 14 crew in line, and 15 into the training cycle, too. He wasn't going to slow the process because of 13's bad luck. He assigned Haise to back up 16, hopefully commanding 19, and Lovell moved into retirement.

Not sure what his plans were for Swigert circa May 1970, but soon Swigert was angling for the ASTP flight.

In any case, I think it's incorrect to be talking about "waste" in Apollo training, even for missions that failed to land. The Apollo 13 crew made serious use of THEIR training, did they not?

NukeGuy
Member

Posts: 90
From: Irvine, CA USA
Registered: May 2014

posted 07-12-2022 05:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for NukeGuy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If radiation was such a concern, why send Lovell, Young and Cernan to the moon twice?

This document has a short but good summary of Apollo radiation exposures as well as instruments/dosimeters used.

Delta7
Member

Posts: 1682
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 07-13-2022 02:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Delta7   Click Here to Email Delta7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Shepard's assignment to Apollo 13 (then switched to Apollo 14) didn't bump anyone from a mission who would have flown otherwise. Gordo Cooper wasn't going to command Apollo 13, period. That decision was made before Shepard returned to flight status. Slayton began searching for a replacement for Cooper and had discussions with McDivitt about him doing that. McDivitt seemingly said he'd consider it, but with conditions that might not have suited Deke (nameley he wanted Scott and Schweikart as his crew. If Deke acquiesced, AND McDivitt subsequently said yes, Deke would have had to find someone to backup Conrad on Apollo 12. It could have been Shepard depending on the timing, but would Al have accepted that assignment? A lot of "ifs" involved).

If McDivitt had ultimately said no, without Shepard in the mix, Deke might have wound up begging Stafford or Borman to take the slot. From everything I've read, neither would have been eager to do it.

The emergence of Shepard as an available and willing solution to the conundrum of "With whom do I replace Gordo?" solved this dilemma for Deke and avoided a potentially difficult situation for him.

I doubt very much that Deke would have even considered Shepard if he didn't have confidence that Al was up to it. If the mission had failed because of some screw-up or perceived lack of performance on Shepard's part, it would have reflected badly on him, not to mention having wasted tons of taxpayer money and embarrassed the agency. Deke was given the responsibility of selecting crews that could get the job done, and be ready to go on launch day. One I'm sure he took very seriously. That's why he wasn't going to use Gordo.

Jonnyed
Member

Posts: 563
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014

posted 07-13-2022 09:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jonnyed   Click Here to Email Jonnyed     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by NukeGuy:
If radiation was such a concern, why send Lovell, Young and Cernan to the moon twice?
The reason that Lovell, Young and Cernan could go to the moon twice (as far as radiation concerns allow) is that they were all young, healthy men who were used to assuming much larger risks than typical humans. But the fact that they were sent twice doesn't diminish the risk of the radiation exposure or somehow prove it was slight — that is a significant logic fallacy to conclude that.

It is however why I brought radiation exposure up in the first place. If the Apollo 13 crew was reassigned that would have been Lovell's third trip crossing the Van Allen belts and he would suffer additional GCR bombardment and possible SEP risks for a third time!

Three times to the moon may still have been allowed (who knows?) but as I've already stated the radiation risks are not trivial — thus my question about if they may have been a factor in "no reassignment" for Lovell at least, according to Michael Cassutt's post, it was probably not discussed or considered by Deke.

The report cited above is actually not a good summary of Apollo radiation exposures — it is 50 years old — and reflects the limitations of what NASA knew at the time, again half a century ago. For example, the 1972 document reports Apollo doses in RAD (radiation absorbed dose), which is a very poor indicator of biological damage and falls short in understanding the real radiation bio damage that the crews suffered.

To truly understand the actual biological damage the R.A.D. has to be adjusted for the "Relative Biological Effectiveness" of the different types of radiation (in this case high energy GCR, Van Allen and SEP) and for the "quality" of the radiation. Radiation scientists used to use quality factors, which are now just called radiation weighting factors to account for how radiation damage varies tremendously from low L.E.T. to high L.E.T. regarding cell damage and cell death, for DNA structure breaks and other tissue damage). Because there was no way at the time of the report for the NASA health physicists to parse all the different radiation fields for RBE, there was no way to sum all the proper weighting factors and so no real idea of true biological damage. So they just reported R.A.D. with no biological damage apportionment as needed for fuller understanding.

For example, alpha radiation (helium nucleus) has a RBE factor of 20x! Some believe that GCR should have an even high factor than 20x given the very high energy and high atomic weights of the particles involved (imagine a GCR iron (Fe) nucleus at high energy ripping at nearly the speed of light into your body tissue and calculate RBE for that!).

It's hard to blame them 50 years ago for just reporting RADose because even today there are gaps in our understanding of true DNA damage and cell damage from GCR and SEP. We are still doing many experiments on rats to better understand space radiation risk calculation.

This is why the earlier question about blood changes (white cell depletion) misses the point of appreciating GCR and SEP risks — those go directly to the brain and central nervous system. So when you hear about planning for the big trip to Mars, that is the radiation risk to pay attention to: damage to the central nervous system due to the heavy nuclei, but I'm beginning to repeat my earlier post.

So the 1972 radiation dose report on the Apollo missions is actually significantly limited in the most vital information — RBE and weighting factors — and makes an irresponsible statement (in my opinion) about comparability to 5 rem LOW LET nuclear worker exposures. How can you make this statement if you haven't demonstrated the summation of all the RBEs and applied the weighting factors?

Now I posted this screed only to make the point: do not take space radiation exposure so lightly, it is not inconsequential and trained experts need to push the known science just as far as they can to fully assess risks and impacts. On the first mission to Mars (non-landing, orbital two year exploratory manned mission) the radiation considerations are enormous due to chronic long term exposure in high energy circumstances. All this has to be figured out before the manned Mars mission.

How far off the Apollo 13 crew topic have we strayed?

carmelo
Member

Posts: 1087
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 07-14-2022 12:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for carmelo   Click Here to Email carmelo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Someone of those that did the voyage to the moon twice suffered for the radiations?

Lovell is still alive and (as I know) in good good health.

Is even just a remote connection among the causes of death of Young and Cernan and the radiation exposure?

Jonnyed
Member

Posts: 563
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014

posted 07-14-2022 04:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jonnyed   Click Here to Email Jonnyed     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Your question is a little like: "I drove around in my car at highway speeds for several years without wearing a seatbelt and I never died or had serious injury so it wasn't risky." Well, no...the risk, even if it was high, never caught up with you.

You see, you seem to be confusing suffering risk with suffering health impacts. There is linkage but no absolute linkage. They are not the same thing per my example above.

The Apollo astronauts suffered a lot of risks--no doubt AP13 the most risks of all! (Remember that is the topic of this thread--AP13 reassignment).

Radiation exposure was just one of the risks the astronauts suffered and thankfully there is no conclusive evidence that any of them had serious health consequences as a result but do not draw mis-conclusions about the level of risk involved. Additionally, they were prime specimens for humans and thus could probably suffer larger risks better than your average Joe. The question is: would you push Lovell to go a third time with a reassignment (i.e., assume additional risks)? Who knows? That's not what fate held.

There is a decent amount of scientific literature that bears on space radiation risks... I encourage you to dig into that further if you have interest. Email me and I can give you specific literature citations.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2022 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement