|
Author
|
Topic: Most important ("best") of the Apollo missions
|
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-22-2010 04:57 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
In my opinion, the fact that Apollo 8 flew around the moon at Christmas actually detracts from its achievements. And reading from the bible doesn't make it anymore special. I call it the detracting factor.
(Unless one is an avowed aetheist) how exactly did the Christmas arrival or reading from the Bible "detract" from Apollo 8 in the way the other cited problems detracted from the other flights mentioned? quote:
Originally posted by aeromed15&17:
But Apollo 11 was probably the most important from the point of view of proving that the lunar orbit rendevous concept worked.
Lunar rendezvous, in lunar orbit, was "proven" by Apollo 10 - - it was the prime reason for that mission. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 01-22-2010 05:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Wasn't the lunar rendezvous concept proved on Apollo 9? OK - it was in Earth orbit but the mechanics were the same was for the '11' mission.
One could definitely argue that many of the rendezvous aspects were tested on Apollo 9. And certainly, any aspects of lunar rendezvous that needed testing in lunar orbit were completed by the Apollo 10 mission. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 01-22-2010 05:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
(Unless one is an avowed aetheist)
I am an atheist and to me when people go on about the bible reading and the specialness of it being at Christmas time, it just takes away from the fact that it was the first time humans had flown to the moon. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-22-2010 07:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
In my opinion, the fact that Apollo 8 flew around the moon at Christmas actually detracts from its achievements. And reading from the bible doesn't make it anymore special. I call it the detracting factor. On Apollo 7 it was Schirra's cold, on 8 it's the Christmas and bible thing, on 9 it's Schweickart's sickness, on 10 it's Cernan's swearing, on 12 it's the loss of the camera...
For the record, while I am not religious, I do believe in a creator. Do I deserve to be denigrated for that belief? Whether intentionally or not, that is the only conclusion one can draw when reading from the Bible is compared with illness (Schirra's cold), nausea (Schweikart's physical upset), denigration (Cernan's unintentional swearing) and failure (the camera failing because of Bean's error, or human failing). I don't believe the crew of Apollo 8 meant to slight or preach to anyone when they read from Genesis; it seemed (to me, anyway) they were merely expressing their own sense of awe, gratitude, and inspiration (divine or otherwise) at being the first to witness the incredible sights they were seeing on a day obviously special to them. Why that reading should be off-putting to anyone is beyond me. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-22-2010 07:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Do I deserve to be denigrated for that belief? Whether intentionally or not, that is the only conclusion one can draw...
I don't think it was Rob's intention to denigrate, nor do I think it's the only conclusion that can be reached; that the other events were negative in connotation is by coincidence only. I believe his point was that Apollo 8 is sometimes highlighted in the media and elsewhere because of the Genesis reading, rather than, first and foremost, because it was the first voyage of humans to another celestial body. I don't think that the Apollo 8 crew set out to do anything to detract from their mission, just as I believe the other crews did not as well. The choice of Genesis could, by its nature, be seen as exclusionary, not just to atheists, but those who do not subscribe to Judeo-Christian beliefs. I don't think the crew chose the passage with any intention but to express their own positive and personal perspective, and it was their every right and appropriate to do so, but from the viewpoint of history, we should be aware that it carried the same potential to exclude as it did to unify "all of you on the good Earth." But with that all said, I will disagree with Rob's premise: I don't think any of the events he listed detracted from their associated missions in such a way to color their later appreciation. If anything, they served as a reminder that humans went to the Moon, not robots nor supermen, and that the 12 who flew represented all of mankind. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-22-2010 07:47 PM
As you wrote, Robert, the reading wasn't meant to offend or exclude.... just as Buzz's taking communion on the moon wasn't. It's a person's intent that counts. All the astronauts who walked on the moon spoke exclusively English... should Chinese speaking people have been offended? Did the English-only communication "detract" from the mission? |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 01-23-2010 03:28 PM
I did not mean to compare the bible reading with sickness or failures. To illustrate what I meant to say, pick up any book on space and the achievements of Apollo 7 will always come second to the details of Schirra’s cold even though the mission was nearly 11 days long and basically paved the way for the entire Apollo program after the dreadful Apollo 1 fire. The same, as Robert pointed out, can be said of the Apollo 8 mission. What I don't like is the fact that a religious 'event' overshadows the fantastic achievements of men and women and Christmas and the bible reading are always mentioned. Robert also makes a good point that it was men and not machines that went on these missions but I think what Buzz did on Apollo 11 was fine, he had a private ceremony befitting his beliefs and as a result it in no way overshadows that mission's achievements. |
Space Cadet Carl
Member Posts: 225
From: Lake Orion, Michigan
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 01-24-2010 10:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
On Apollo 7 it was Schirra's cold, on 8 it's the Christmas and bible thing, on 9 it's Schweickart's sickness, on 10 it's Cernan's swearing, on 12 it's the loss of the camera, on 14 it's failure to reach the rim of Cone Crater. Only Apollo 11, 15, 16 and 17 flew missions remembered for their achievements and not some non-space related factor.
Man alive, dude... you certainly don't subscribe to the Tom Hanks' school of childlike wonderment and awe that we all felt back in the 60's and 70's when all of these exciting events were going down, do you now?? |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2216
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-24-2010 12:33 PM
Thankfully we didn't have politcal correctness in the 60's quite as bad as we do now. There will always be some event or opinion that differs from yours, surely that's a good thing? Opinions are just opinions - not prejudice. Live and let live is my motto. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-24-2010 02:54 PM
Though it came off that way, Rob, I'm glad to know it wasn't your intention to compare the Apollo 8 reading from Genesis with sickness or failures, and so I'm sorry I took it that way.I guess it depends on what sources you're researching, and I agree the Genesis reading on Apollo 8 shouldn't be touted as the primary achievement of that mission, but where have you come across the (bible) reading described that way? The most noteworthy thing about Apollo 8 I come across is almost always that it was the first flight to leave Earth's gravity and venture to the moon; the Genesis reading is almost always described as just a nice touch added by the astronauts because it was Christmas eve. In any case, the bible reading was planned and intentional, and so in that way certainly differs from all the other misfortunes during other missions you mentioned, and I guess is why it came off so negatively. Again, I'm glad that wasn't the meaning you intended to convey. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 01-24-2010 06:35 PM
Each to their own is what I think. Getting back to the original topic of this post, I think that Apollo 11 was the perfect mission full of adventure and drama and also fulfilled the challenge set by President Kennedy. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-25-2010 04:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
There will always be some event or opinion that differs from yours, surely that's a good thing? Opinions are just opinions - not prejudice. Live and let live is my motto.
A long time ago one of my college lecturers said that when people argue they are merely rearranging their own prejudices.However, I'm still curious as to why the sudden switch from Apollo 15 to Apollo 11 in the years between 2003 and 2010. Anyone any theories? |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 01-25-2010 09:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
...Only Apollo 11, 15, 16 and 17 flew missions remembered for their achievements and not some non-space related factor.
I would argue that lots of people remember John Young's torments with citrus fruit on Apollo 16. |
413 is in
Member Posts: 632
From: Alexandria, VA USA
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-25-2010 11:15 AM
With all due respect, your argument on Apollo 16 is full of hot air, Jonathan.  |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-26-2010 04:37 AM
Concerning what Apollo flights were perhaps the most "important" or "best" it does sort of boil down to the definition as different people have different criteria. Some go for the emotional moments, others for the scientific discovery, others for the engineering.From an engineering and achievement standpoint, I look at what each flight proved as the benchmark, with no real emphasis on the emotional bits necessarily (although they were important in their own way as this is what helps make manned flight unique from unmanned probes IMHO). Here is a list of the major accomplishments on each Apollo mission as I see them: Apollo 7: First test of a manned Block 2 CSM in Earth orbit (first test of any manned Apollo craft in orbit for that matter), full shakedown of the craft's systems including propulsion, life support, the inertial guidance system and the computer(a biggie). First orbital rendezvous of an Apollo spacecraft with a specific target (the S-IVB). First manned flight of a Saturn 1B booster, first reentry and recovery of a manned Apollo flight. First use of the black and white internal TV camera. First use of the A7L Apollo space suits inside the craft. First use of the ARIA aircraft to support Apollo spacecraft operations in areas where a tracking station or ship couldn't be used. Apollo 8: First Saturn V manned flight (first flight after changes made in wake of Apollo 6's ascent problems), First TLI, extensive test of the inertial guidance system and computer outside of Earth orbit, test of the calculations to get to the moon, park there for 10 orbits and come back. First time a manned spacecraft has "left" the gravitational influence of the Earth to enter the influence of a different celestrial body and come back. First use of the deep space tracking network on Earth (and I believe the high gain antenna on the CSM, not sure if A7 carried one). First manned lunar return speed reentry. First use of personal cameras to photograph lunar surface and conduct orbital survey of possible landing sites. Apollo 9: First flight of Saturn V with BOTH a CSM and LM onboard. First flight of LM, extensive test of LM descent and ascent stages, LM computer, guidance system and assorted hardware. First manned free flight of LM. First mission handled by MOCR of two independent manned spacecraft. First two person EVA, first use of Apollo A7 spacesuits on an EVA, first test of PLSS backpack system in a space environment. First rendezvous and docking between two manned spacecraft (first use of Apollo docking hardware). First use of external black and white television camera on a mission (used for TV coverage of the spacewalk IIRC). Apollo 10: First TLI with a CSM and LM. First flight of a LM in lunar orbit. First major orbit change between two spacecraft in lunar orbit, rendezvous and docking. Extensive test of the LM on the first stage of lunar descent to the surface. Dress rehersal of the equipment and procedures intended for landing on the moon by both the flight crew and the MOCR (same MOCR crew intended for Apollo 11 used to do same jobs on Apollo 10). First use of color television camera for internal coverage (used on all successive flights). Apollo 11: First lunar landing, first manned flight to the surface of another celestrial body. First manned ascent from same celestrial body. First use of A7 suits, PLSS equipment and assorted hardware on surface of the moon. First lunar geological samples collected, first survey of lunar surface conducted. First use of black and white television camera (same one tested on A9) on surface of the moon. First ALSEP deployment on moon. First use of the mobile quarantine facility and bio-hazard procedures after the flight. Apollo 12: First "all weather" testing of Saturn V and contingency procedures as related to the lightning strike. First realignment of guidance platform in Earth orbit (lightning related, although A7 might have tested those procedures first). First pinpoint landing on lunar surface next to a specific target of study (Surveyor). First use of color external camera on lunar surface (albeit brief). First return of man made objects from the moon after long term lunar exposure (Surveyor parts). More extensive geological survey and ALSEP deployment then A11. First lunar mission to conduct two surface EVAs with a break in between. Apollo 13: Somewhat obvious in terms of its engineering and logistical challenge as related to the oxygen tank explosion and the resulting damage. I would say this was probably the most extensive test to date of the LM and CSM hardware and the men in being able to do a mission so totally different from what was originally intended and the outcome was a good one with the crew coming home safely. First flight of a backup crewmember on an Apollo spacecraft (Swigert) on short notice. First flight where the CSM and LM left free return trajectory (and returned to it after the explosion) to survey more interesting geological features on the moon. Apollo 14: First flight after Apollo 13 with hardware and procedure changes to the spacecraft. First use of a wheeled cart on the moon to help extend the distance from the LM that scientific research and more extensive sample collection could be conducted. First major reprogramming of the computer in Lunar orbit to bypass a possible problem. First landing at what was considered an older region of the lunar surface. Longest distance covered by astronauts on a pre-rover mission. Last use of mobile quarantine facility. Apollo 15: First flight of a J series LM with a larger descent engine bell to handle the increased weight and larger consumables load. First use of a SIM bay on the CSM, containing additional cameras and instruments for orbital lunar survey. First landing at a very interesting set of lunar features with mountains on one side and a rille on the other (a real challenge navigationally). First use of lunar rover. Most extensive geological survey to date with astronauts acting as field geologists. Collection of some very significant lunar samples, including the so-called "Genesis Rock". Longest EVAs conducted to that point, both in time spent on the surface and distance covered. First deep space EVA conducted by Al Worden to retrieve film canisters from SIM bay instruments. Apollo 16: This one had many of the same science and technology goals that A15 had. Its goal was to gather data from a different region of the moon to help refine the theories about its makeup and formation. It is probably most signifigant for helping to disprove one theory of the moon's geologic history in that the samples returned from Descartes showed the moon was geologically inactive for a longer period of time then first thought. Apollo 17: First night launch of a Saturn V (although technically not a real engineering challenge). As I recall, it was the first hardware delay of a lunar launch, resulting in a later launch time and increased speed by the spacecraft to get to the moon in order to land on the moon when the shadows were in their proper spots. Last flight of a lunar module. I don't recall fully, but I think this mission was the longest one conducted on the lunar surface to date (A16's was a little short due to problems with the CSM after undocking). First flight of a scientist in space and to the moon. Longest distance covered by astronauts on the surface of the moon with a rover and I believe longest EVAs conducted to that point. By the end of Apollo, the engineering challenges had been proven and it was pretty much down to the scientific goals of the later missions to add to Apollo's highlights. But before one could land, one had to get there and others had to test the hardware before even trying a flight to the moon. It is like a tapestry. Pull one strand off and the entire tapestry unravels or changes entirely. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-26-2010 06:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
Only Apollo 11, 15, 16 and 17 flew missions remembered for their achievements and not some non-space related factor.
What about '15' blemished as it was by the envelopes franked on the Moon supposedly to be sold to set up a trust fund for the astronauts' children and the statuette left on the Moon later copied for sale? Didn't this lead to Scott being removed from the Flight Lists and given a ground job by NASA?As an aside - some of the envelopes appeared on the 'black market' in 1975 where they were commanding a price of £600. |
mikej
Member Posts: 481
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 01-26-2010 09:59 AM
Jay, a couple of quibbles on your list of "firsts":A/RIA were employed on the Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 missions (although the aircraft used on Apollo 4 had signal acquisition problems). And the first flight, albeit unmanned, of the lunar module occurred on Apollo 5. |
aeromed15&17
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 01-26-2010 11:25 AM
AP11 proved the concept of launching a spacecraft from the surface of the moon and rendevous in lunar orbit with significant portions of the process not only at lunar distance, but also out of communication with earth (MCC). |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-26-2010 02:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by aeromed15&17:
AP11 proved the concept of launching a spacecraft from the surface of the moon and rendevous in lunar orbit...
I beg to differ. The 'concept' was proved during the Apollo 9 mission and verified by Apollo 10. Apollo 11 was the first flight to put into practice the groundwork done by McDivitt and his crew whilst actually on the surface. |
Jeff
Member Posts: 483
From: Fayetteville, NC, USA
Registered: May 2009
|
posted 01-26-2010 02:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
I beg to differ.
I agree with you that the concept was proved on 9 and verified on 10...I think what aeromed15&17 may have been referring to was, although this procedure had been successful both in earth orbit with 9 and lunar orbit with 10...this was the first time in which a manned spacecraft was successfully launched from the surface of the moon. No two ways about it, if they didn't reach some sort of orbit, it was a bad day. On Apollo 9 ,at least in theory, Scott could take over the active role and track down the LM, had the ascent engine not fired. The same could be said for Young on 10, had Snoopy had an issue with its ascent engine Charlie Brown could have flown the active part of the rendezvous and tracked them down. Mike Collins had 18 different rendezvous scenarios that he was required to learn to fly in the event that Eagle aborted the landing or the ascent engine placed the crew in some weird orbit. But there's still no two ways about it... if the engine didn't fire, game over. Nothing he could do to recover them from that scenario. |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 01-26-2010 07:59 PM
Another quibble with the firsts - Didn't the MOCR handle two independent manned craft on Gemini 6/7?Also I would add Apollo 1 to the list of important missions. Without the lessons learned from the fire and the intense pressure on quality control, we may never have made it to the Moon by 1970, and we might have had a fire-related fatality in space at some point. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-27-2010 01:37 PM
I see the points about the quibbles. Thing about Gemini 6 and 7 though is were they controlled through the same MOCR or did they use two different ones (two were built for Apollo, but were they in operation by Gemini)? Granted 6 was a much shorter duration mission then 7, so I can see one MOCR being used for both. Maybe I should have said, "two independent spacecraft launched together as part of the same mission and flown seperately, yet controlled from one MOCR."  As for ARIA, understood about it being used for Apollos 4 and 6 to get telemetry, although 7 would have been the first time it was used for two way voice communications. As for Apollo 5, as I recall it was a bit different and simplified from the design that eventually flew on 9 (did it even have the computer on board?) All it really did was fire the descent motor for a period, seperate and then fire the ascent motor. It didn't have any legs as I recall. As such, A9 would be the first test of a production spec (misnomer as they were all handbuilt anyway and changed each flight) LM. |
Jeff
Member Posts: 483
From: Fayetteville, NC, USA
Registered: May 2009
|
posted 01-27-2010 02:26 PM
Jay, you're correct in that there were two MOCRs built in building #30. One was located on the second floor and the other was on the third floor. From what I've been able to find in researching this matter... the MOCR on the second floor was used for: three Saturn 1B missions, Apollo 5-7 and 9, Skylab and Apollo Soyuz. The third floor MOCR was used for all Gemini missions and the Apollo lunar missions. |
Space Cadet Carl
Member Posts: 225
From: Lake Orion, Michigan
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 01-29-2010 11:11 AM
My apologies to everyone for setting off the "Apollo 8 debate" in this link. Everyone has good points that seem to point to two conclusions: First, Apollo 11 was a very important flight from the aspect that it fulfilled the national goal. Second, Apollo 15 was a very important flight because if fulfilled the scientific goal. On the other hand, Apollo 8 was a very emotional "star voyage" for those of us that first experienced it as kids back in '68. I hope all of you can understand. |
astro-nut
Member Posts: 970
From: Washington, IL
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 01-29-2010 11:23 AM
In my opinion, Apollo 15 was the best mission of them all. All the Apollo flights were the best in their own style/way. I just think Apollo 15 was the best for being at Hadley-Rille and finding the "Genesis Rock". Just my opinion, thank you. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-29-2010 12:20 PM
Apollo 8 I rank in the top 3 certainly as it was to date the biggest gamble NASA had ever undertaken to that point. There were so many things never done before in terms of navigation, tracking, astronauts relying on themselves on the far side to enter/exit lunar orbit and indeed launching on a Saturn V with a redesign that hadn't been flown yet. Granted eventually Apollo 10 would have flown the same profile with the lunar module if the original schedule had held, the Soviets weren't considering a lunar flyby and the LM delays didn't result in the bold decision being taken. |
FFrench
Member Posts: 3165
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-31-2010 05:32 PM
Purely as an aside, I'm interested to note the flights mentioned most in this thread and (possibly coincidentally) look at the only three Apollo crews who were ever given the honor of addressing a Joint Meeting of Congress. They were:Apollo 8
Apollo 11
Apollo 15 |
advertisement