posted 06-28-2005 11:09 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by taneal1:
I recall Cooper's incident but I've not seen it stated anywhere that Shepard actually told Williams that Cooper should be replaced on MA-9, or that the other 6 made it clear that Cooper should be kept on the mission.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
If I got disrespectful, I apologize.

---

But that's the beauty of your posting formula (your irreverence), as you must know. Curiosity and high dudgeon are great historical tools.

You wondered about usage regarding the article and the "h," as in "a/an historical account." The rule in American English hinges on the aspiration of the "h." If the h is aspirated (pronounced with the breath), then use "a" -- as in "a hotel" and "a historian."

posted 06-28-2005 02:28 PM               

Hence, after FLIGHT was published in 2002, one saw an outbreak of something like contempt for Scott Carpenter's abilities, with a lot of piling on that had much to do with group think (mass hysteria) and little to do with the facts of MA-7 and a malfunctioning pitch horizon scanner.

Big Al, long a mysterious figure, is the brunt of some criticism this week.

Regarding biases: Regarding MA-7, for example, you could say, and many critics have, that Carpenter focused on science at the expense of the (science) mission. The overshoot is used to "prove" this point, which is then disproved by careful study.

Regarding Apollo 14, pro-science biases prompt some readers to attack Shepard's performance.

But by Apollo 14, Apollo was over and science and exploration were little more than public-pleasing PR talking points for an agency casting about for a new vision. Al knew this.

By 1971 more than 500 men were dying each week in Vietnam. LIFE magazine yanked cold war astronauts from the cover, replacing them with pictures of wounded soldiers in a hot war.

So we're arguing about science and exploration in a bubble here. There was a larger world out there.

NASA had run the race and crossed the finish line -- in 1969. We can talk about Big Al undertraining for a geology mission and get only part of it right if we forget the larger historical American context.

I don't know about the controversy of his landing of the Antares. But I do know he was demonstrating confidence in his piloting skills. Just as Carpenter knew in 1962 he could land his own craft, safely, should it get dicey at retrofire. Heat, tyrannical flight plan, intermittently malfunctioning attitude controls. None of that really mattered.

What matters at the end is your confidence in your abilities with the machine. And Shepard and Glenn and Grissom and Armstrong and Carpenter and Cooper and Conrad and Schirra -- all of them -- all had that unshakable confidence in their abilities.

posted 06-28-2005 03:03 PM               

It was a larger world out there, and it had become fashionable then, as it is now, to dismiss manned flight as a stunt. If science was a fig leaf to Apollo, LACK of science was the fig leaf naysayers and the NIMBY crowd used to torpedo returning to the Moon post-Apollo.

It'll be close to 50 years after Gene Cernan left that humans land again on the Moon. That's disgraceful, especially for a nation that had the hardware in hand to continue exploration. The next voice from the Moon will, most likely, be Chinese or Indian. How can they pass us when they have to start from scratch except from a lack of will?

posted 06-28-2005 03:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
The ego and politics shown in cases like Apollo 14 helped sap that will.

---

posted 06-28-2005 03:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
The ego and politics shown in cases like Apollo 14 helped sap that will.

---

Well, my bias in favor of science/exploration has me agreeing with you, once again. But the historian in me argues that this loss or sapping of national will was inevitable.

Had Kennedy survived to appoint Glenn to be NASA administrator. Had Glenn and Carpenter remained ascendant at NASA after their Mercury flights--and Glenn's "one foot out the door" post-Mercury posture is a far more complicated story than is typically told. Then, perhaps NASA might have found a way out of low earth orbit or even to to Mars. But that's a lot of ifs.

posted 06-28-2005 03:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
The ego and politics shown in cases like Apollo 14 helped sap that will.

---

posted 06-28-2005 04:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
Regarding Apollo 14, pro-science biases prompt some readers to attack Shepard's performance.

But by Apollo 14, Apollo was over and science and exploration were little more than public-pleasing PR talking points for an agency casting about for a new vision. Al knew this.

---

Science was indeed being used by NASA in the political arena as a means to try and extend Apollo and post-Apollo activities (although by 1971 that fight was long over).

But in the arena of real scientific exploration, humankind had only seven shots at exploring areas of the moon. The first two missions were essentially proving it could be done, and done precisely. The third mission was the first to really begin geological exploration. With the failure of Apollo 13, humankind was down to six shots, with 14 repeating what 13 had attempted (and another promising location scrubbed).

Whatever the reason - and my belief is that it was a large combination of factors - 14 is considered to be a missed opportunity for surface science by those who know these things in depth (Roosa did outstanding geological photography work in lunar orbit).

Are you saying that, because science was an ineffective political bargaining chip, that that was justification for Shepard taking science less seriously on this mission?

I'd argue the opposite. Regardless of politics (or perhaps as a direct result of its shortsightedness) NASA had only six shots to try and geologically understand an entire world. Each mission was therefore vital from a point of view of science and exploration, and the science return needed to be maximized.

posted 06-28-2005 04:32 PM               

Not really. But kind of. I have to concede what you and others are arguing, that "NASA had only six shots to try and geologically understand an entire world. Each mission was therefore vital from a point of view of science and exploration, and the science return needed to be maximized."

Apollo 14 therefore represents a missed opportunity that Duke and you are right to deplore.

I am guilty of soft-pedaling the failure, kind of a quasi-filial instinct -- refocusing on the big picture, which in 1971 was a country torn over the war in Vietnam and deeply ambivalent about the space program.

posted 06-28-2005 05:17 PM               

A lot of astronauts, and many revered individuals among them, looked at Apollo as their personal joy ride. People like Scott Carpenter looked at a bigger picture and they suffered for it. If there had been a more serious effort at science, exploration or long-term stays the 70s and beyond might have been much different at NASA.

posted 06-28-2005 05:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by WAWalsh:
There is simply nothing to support this statement and nothing in the Apollo 14 mission, at least nothing that come to mind, that played any role in the direction that NASA took.

---

posted 06-28-2005 05:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
I am guilty of soft-pedaling the failure, kind of a quasi-filial instinct--refocusing on the big picture, which in 1971 was a country torn over the war in Vietnam and deeply ambivalent about the space program.

I suppose this looks, smells, and sounds either cynical, or if not cynical then a pretty lame rationalization on my part for sub-par preparation and training on the astronauts' part.

---

And as one of the "NASA family," defending those you grew up around is a natural and, indeed, admirable instinct.

I should mention that I'm actually pretty ambivalent on how much blame could be laid at Shepard's feet - if any. Yes, he wasn't a natural-born geologist, and probably wasn't too interested in ever becoming one. But I wouldn't go as far as blaming him for Apollo 14 being probably the least successful landing mission.

My personal take, based on many sources, would be that there was a mixture of many factors. There was ambitious planning that didn't quite work out but was understandable (after Apollo 12's perfect landing, why not try the same next to a geological feature and have the astronauts walk up to it?), lack of understanding that photos / maps of the terrain from above would not help much on the ground (hard to know this until they were there), a belief that a cart would help, not hinder the exploration (mostly wrong) and an understandable learning curve of coordination between back room and astronauts on this first geology-themed mission.

Only then, WAY down the list, might you add a lack of coordination between two astronauts, trying to decide in a hurry between two different options - find the rim, or carefully sample where they were. In hindsight (which is of course much easier than being there, in the thick of things), the answer was to carefully sample (which is what Shepard wanted to do), as the area was believed almost identical to rim samples.

But looking into a crater has an element of explorational grandeur, and if they had not at least tried, then I am guessing there would have been far more of a sense of disappointment. It would have made for one hell of a photo (and the public would have loved it, I am sure - it would have been on every newspaper and magazine cover).

As it was, they tried to split the difference - sample and find the rim - and did neither to their satisfaction. But that's exploration for you, on an untried mission with a severe lack of time, learning as you go. Not a failure, and perhaps a vital learning curve for the incredible successes of the three missions that followed, having learned the lessons of 14.

posted 06-28-2005 06:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
A lot of astronauts, and many revered individuals among them, looked at Apollo as their personal joy ride.

---

posted 06-28-2005 07:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Am I right John in assuming that your statement is based on the few acts of expression that the astronauts exhibited?

---

I'm remarking on the competition, office politics and such I've read about.

posted 06-28-2005 07:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
I have to defer to you on much of this, although I think dropping a feather and hammer on the Moon was an inspired bit of science education.

---

Yes, Shepard did use every ounce of power he had to get himself sent to the front of the class, but even if he wasn't part of the decision tree, do you really think that America's first astronaut (selected for good reason) wouldn't have received the same consideration? It wasn't like he was the runt of the litter.

And yes, he wasn't the strongest to be motivated when it came to geology, but he flew a damn good mission, handled himself with composure during a near abort and, with Mitchell at his side, accomplished a majority, if not all of the stated NASA objectives. He even chose to forgo the glory of standing on the rim of Cone Crater in the name of collecting more geology samples (if you choose to believe his account).

At the end of the day, I don't believe Shepard acted any differently than any of his fellow astronauts. All of them reached for the next available seat. They all twisted every arm and ear they could, relied on every favor and did everything they could to put themselves out in front of the pack.

And when they didn't - when they placed other priorities ahead of getting an assignment - they were passed over. Did office politics play a part? Sure. But name any office that doesn't see the same thing when it comes to handing out promotions.

posted 06-28-2005 08:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Did office politics play a part? Sure. But name any office that doesn't see the same thing when it comes to handing out promotions.

---

We've even seen that debate here. The idea back then was that we were spending money and ONLY getting pretty pictures and moondust in return. More emphasis on science would have countered those arguments against a continued lunar presence.

posted 06-30-2005 03:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
One thing's for sure: its a heck of a lot easier, 35+ years later to say in hindsight that someone could have done it better than it was back then, sitting strapped to the top of a Saturn V, risking your life and limb for the chance to be one of the 12 to walk on the Moon. This wasn't a joy ride, but it sure as heck was the journey of a lifetime.

---

You can point to a lot of things and say "It could have been done better." You can point to a lot of things and speculate that "It would have been done better by XXXXX".

Fact is, none of us (that I am aware of) were there. None of us had to make those decisions.

posted 06-30-2005 08:02 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obviousman:
It's interesting to speculate and hypothesize, but let's not forget that we were not in the hot seat with a decision to make and time pressures upon us.

---

posted 06-30-2005 09:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
Sorry I criticized your icons.

---

posted 06-30-2005 09:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obviousman:
This wasn't a joy ride, but it sure as heck was the journey of a lifetime.

---

posted 06-30-2005 03:24 PM               

1. To the extent that the public was paying attention at all, it was focused on the fact that Alan Shepard, first American in space, was going to the moon. The public in 1971 wasn't privy to astronaut office politics, and probably wouldn't have cared. "Alan Shepard goes to the moon" was a great story, and great PR for NASA. Suggesting that Apollo 14 and/or Shepard's performance was harmful to the program is simply an attempt at revisionist history.

2. Shepard put in the work required to be proficient on the Apollo systems, or he wouldn't have gotten the assignment, regardless of his hero status. Did he lobby for it? Hell yes, and I would have, too.

3. Apollo 14 was the most ambitious lunar EVA to date, and there was obviously still a learning curve for surface navigation. The lessons learned there (and the addition of a rover) aided future missions.

4. The MET may have seemed like a good idea, but Shepard and Mitchell ended up carrying/dragging the thing because its wheels bogged down in the loose lunar soil. Nobody ever talks about that. Gordon Cooper/Jim Lovell/Jim McDivitt would have had trouble with it, too.

5. I think you can compare Apollo 14's lunar EVA to Cernan's EVA on Gemini IX. Cernan's EVA was much more ambitious than Ed White's (as A-14 was much more ambitious than A-11 and A-12), and he had quite a bit of trouble. In fact, you could label that EVA a failure. Was that Cernan's fault? Some people said so at the time, but I think that criticism is unfair, just as the criticism of Shepard and Mitchell is unfair.

posted 07-01-2005 11:32 AM               

The politics of the times were difficult, but I was there and understood them. I was enthusiastic about Apollo, and many more people would have supported further missions if it hadn't been seen as a stunt.

Had NASA been more enthusiastic about science (geology folks!) and pushed it as an exploration program there may have been a better outcome for post-17 flights and AAP.

When I read the books I got honked off at what I considered a cavalier attitude and a head that took NASA as an amusement park proprieter.