posted 08-06-2008 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Danhakl:
Anybody that wants to read a very good (and lengthy) Neil Armstrong interview (106 pages long) can do so here.

---

The story you've described is a wonderful example of just how humble this man is. I guess when it comes down to it, Neil just wants to be Neil, private citizen, and live a regular, ordinary life. Amazingly, he's succeeded.

posted 08-06-2008 07:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betsy:
At least from First Man, it doesn't sound like they worried too much (if at all) about Neil being first out if there was an emergency and they had to leave quickly.

---

posted 08-06-2008 09:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer:
Is this a love fest or is it acceptable to make comments that aren't complimentary to an Astronaut?

---

posted 08-06-2008 09:51 PM            

Touche - you're absolutely right that nothing would have been left to chance. I'm not sure who could answer your questions, but I'm interested in knowing the answer.

Hi Lee

posted 08-06-2008 09:57 PM               

I found him in both cases to be guarded, unfriendly and defensive, especially in regards to questions about who exited the LM first and why.

posted 08-06-2008 10:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer:
I have yet to meet another astronaut/comsonaut that I found 'disagreeable'.

---

posted 08-06-2008 11:15 PM               

I will keep my 'opinions' to myself.

I did query this Forum first before i made my comments.

But I will try to watch what I say, in future.

posted 08-07-2008 05:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K. Rochester:
there may have been the possibility of having an open tunnel for McDivitt to float into during Rusty's exit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Danhakl:
Imagine had it been Pete Conrad - he would never have left our pop media culture - He'd be on TV now doing Viagra commercials.

---

On the topic of who was going to be first out it would appear that quite a large number of newspapers at the time assumed it would be the LMP, Aldrin. One article wrote, 'Man's first footprint on the untouched lunar sand probably will be that of Dr. Aldrin, a 38 year-old aerial combat veteran who is the world champion space walker and an expert on orbital rendezvous'.

It goes on to describe Armstrong's role, 'As commander of the moon flight, plans call for him to be the second man on the moon's surface'.

Could Armstrong's reluctance to take any personal credit for being the first man to step onto the moon be due to the fact that he feels guilty because he knows deep down that it should have been Aldrin?

posted 08-07-2008 06:13 AM               

I will not directly address the issue of First Out. But Robert raises an interesting point about abort-to-orbit situations from the lunar surface. This was evidently discussed before flight. There were contingency procedures for non-nominal LM orbital insertions where the CSM would “plunge down” and attempt a rescue.

But once on the surface, what situations would cause an urgent abort-to-orbit situation? Robert’s post got me thinking.

From my readings of flight ops documents and reading transcripts (a while ago, so forgive me for not citing references and exact numbers), the pre-liftoff prep took a good 2 hours of work: switch setting, platform checks, AOT readings, DSKY entries, checking numbers with Mission Control (MCC), pyro activation, etc. That is of course the nominal procedure.

As Lovell and Haise convincingly demonstrated when they powered up the LM on Apollo 13, nominal procedures can be shortened quite a bit in case of emergency. So, I have no doubt there was a way to power up and launch the Ascent Stage more rapidly than what the normal procedures needed. Also, it is interesting to note that the LMP would bear quite of bit of the workload to power up and prep the LM. This would suggest that if you feared a possible abort from the surface, your best bet would have been to keep the LMP inside to start the launch procedures. But read on…

That being said, I think the EVA Go decision would not have been made until everyone on the Moon and in Mission Control was entirely confident they had a nice stable LM. Also, remember that a team in MCC kept constant watch on all LM systems. Any deterioration in any systems would have been caught early.

I can see many situations where the LM’s ascent to orbit would have been delayed to allow everyone to work the problem (electrical or computer issues, for example). But I see few situations where the CDR would have to rush back into the LM for an emergency launch. The only one I can think of is a significant leak in the fuel or helium tanks/systems (blown valve/joint or meteoritic impact). Faced with the irrevocable loss of fuel or pressurizer, the only option is to launch ASAP and hope for a rescue by the CSM.

The other possibility I can envision actually almost occurred on Apollo 11. An ice plug causing overpressure in the descent stage could have resulted in an explosion and damaged the ascent stage. But the ice plug issue resolved itself before the EVA began and, had it not resolved itself, I doubt there would have been an EVA.

Can anyone think of any other situation?

In the end, I decided to go to the proverbial horse’s mouth: I looked at the Apollo 11 Mission Rules. There are only 2 rules for LM Lunar Stay operations, here they are:

1- Only those time-critical systems failures or trends that indicate impending loss of the capability to ascend and achieve a safe orbit will be cause for an immediate abort (anytime liftoff) from the lunar surface.

2- Loss of redundant capability in critical LM systems is cause for abort at the next best opportunity.

Only rule 1 calls for immediate abort and, in my mind, screams “ascent engine and fuel.” Most other failures call for the next best opportunity. “Next best” does not suggest an extreme rush to launch and “best” suggests they wanted the liftoff to be as nominal as possible.

So, in my opinion, it is not really necessary to consider an emergency liftoff as a factor in the First Out decision. It was a difficult and touchy decision that seems to have been put off for too long. I personally think that the command and seniority issues were the deciding factors. It is also very probable that the very intelligent Aldrin saw through the hatch rationale for what it was (even if it was a valid technical argument nevertheless). Maybe Slayton could have communicated the decision to Aldrin better?? The decision itself may not be the issue here, maybe it was delayed too long and communications were simply mishandled by all players. In their rightful defense, all the folks involved were working 80+hour weeks and had a lot of other things on their mind at the time.

Finally, about asking questions to astronauts. Although all of them can walk unbothered in most public places, the situation is quite different at space-related events where they are focus points of continuous and sometimes intense attention. I think it is normal for them to be somewhat guarded and reluctant to address any or all issues thrust before them by strangers. Especially, if it is a complicated/sensitive issue and there is risk of misinterpretation or mis-citation. Clearly, there are some situations (the First Out issue, for ex.) that cannot be completely understood unless you were there. These guys have earned the right to be “given a break.”

posted 08-07-2008 07:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by robsouth:
Betsy I'd be interested in your comments on this webpage.

---

I took a quick look at the website - already I'm skeptical. What is with the comemnt that "although Neil Armstrong never admitted to pulling rank" (or something like that), he clearly wanted to be the first. The author implies that NA did pull rank and just never admitted it. There has never been one serious sugggestion by anyone that NA did that. By all accounts, the decision wasn't in NA's hands (and I have no doubt he wanted it. He once responded at the 30th anniversary of Apollo press conference that he would never trade his privacy for the honor of being first man on the moon) and he just went about his business.

Why would or should NA feel guilty about being selected? Just because precedent said the LMP was the first out doesn't mean that precedent can't be changed. I'm not sure why Buzz would think that he had the automatic right to be first out, but he did. The fact is, from his own quote, he struggled "not to be angry with Neil". That's from the horse's mouth. So, in essence he blamed his commander for a decision that his commander had nothing to do with. I think First Man does a particularly good job in the relevant chapter pertaining to this episode. The fact that newspapers were touting Buzz as the "first man" doesn't mean much; they didn't have any real information, they just speculated based on prior history.

I'll read the whole page again later, when I have more time.

posted 08-07-2008 08:26 AM               

The only certain fact is that NA was the first man to step on the moon and in MHO did himself, his crew, his fellow astronauts and his nation proud with the way he handled it.

The first moonwalker I met was back in 1984. Jim Irwin told me with much enthusiasm and sincerity that he could never imagine anyone else carrying that mantle with such dignity and humility.

In conversations with others since then this sentiment seems fairly standard. A good example is Gene Cernan's Purdue speech.

First man out... it WAS Neil Armstrong, so "what if" or why is surely irrelevant.

posted 08-07-2008 08:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leslie:
I never understood these "what if" threads

---

posted 08-08-2008 03:16 AM               

We have all been gulity (myself included) of giving unnecessary criticism. The media has made many an astronaut jaded and cynical. I can't blame them for carmera shy. Let's not be too judgemental.

posted 08-08-2008 09:24 AM            

At a press conference Armstrong said, "A lot will depend on how our training exercises go for the next five months. We’ll decide who's first on the basis of those exercises".

There was a lot of speculation in the press, that NASA did nothing to quell, that Aldrin would be the first out. So it is fair to say that just after his selection to the crew and in the early months of training Aldrin could expect to be chosen as the first man on the moon.

The following article by William J. Cromie in March 1969 is typical of what was being written at the time.

Who will be the first man to set foot on the moon? That’s the big question space-watchers are asking and more and more of them are coming up with the same answer – Edwin Eugene “Buzz” Aldrin Jr.

In January, Aldrin was selected as lunar module pilot on Apollo 11. When asked how he felt about being assigned to this historic flight, the blue-eyed astronaut colonel said, with an impish grin, “I feel they made the right choice.”

Aldrin and 38-year-old civilian Neil Armstrong, commander of the mission, are due to land the spidery lunar module on the moon around July 18. One of them will go out on the moon 30-45 minutes before the other and thus will be immortalized as the first man to walk on another celestial body.

NASA has not said officially which one of the two it will be. In an interview, Armstrong stated: “It will be the man whose activities for that time period fit in best with the over-all objectives of the mission”.

However, various NASA officials have been reported as saying that the flight plan, as now drawn, calls for Aldrin to exit first.

From what the space agency has revealed about the mission, this seems logical. Since he has the prime responsibility of getting the craft off the moon and will do any manual flying required, the commander would appear to be the best choice to stay aboard.

One might think that Armstrong would be given the privilege of stepping out first because of his rank. But NASA and Armstrong repeatedly stress that each flight is a team effort. What better way to show the world that all this talk about teamwork and democracy is meaningful than by allowing the second-in-command to take one of history’s most momentous steps?

posted 08-19-2008 10:07 PM            

I've read that Deke Slayton stated that any of the Apollo crews he put together could fly any mission, but my money is on the fact that the Apollo 11 crew were positioned for the first lunar landing - because it was thought that...

Armstrong would get the LM down to the lunar surface safely - because of his Gemini 8 experience,

Aldrin would get the LM back to the CSM in lunar orbit if COM to Earth went down and the LM onboard computer failed - he was "Dr. Rendezvous",

Collins would get the CSM home - he was the one with the CSM experience that impressed Frank Borman.

Buzz wrote in one of his books that Frank Borman accused him in a meeting during the prep for Apollo 8 of being the guy with the reputation of "screwing up" guys' missions and that he wasn't going to do it to his, and Borman had President Nixon's ear at that time in 1969. Frank Borman wrote in his autobiography that he thought that Buzz was having problems dealing with life in general way before his Apollo 11 training. If Buzz wasn't considered the guy with the rendezvous knowledge that had to be in the LMP seat on the first lunar landing attempt, IMHO some reason would have been found to give that seat to someone else.

BTW, to the poster who thought that he had heard Gene Cernan state that Apollo 10 LM "Snoopy" was too heavy to land, I recently saw a program where Gene quoted that he and Tom Stafford were told that the fuel tanks of the LM ascent stage weren't fully loaded so if they decided to take matters into their own hands and land, there wasn't enough fuel onboard to get them back into lunar orbit. If Apollo 10 was the dress rehearsal for Apollo 11, then the spacecraft for each mission should have had very similar loads and configurations so accurate comparisons could be made - otherwise, why did "Snoopy" fly with landing gear?

posted 08-20-2008 01:52 AM               

Anyway, getting to the fuel situation, this is probably referring to the "When We Left Earth" interview as I think Geno was playing with the interviewers a bit. Prior to Apollo 10, it was known that the LM selected for that flight (LM-4) was going to be overweight for a lunar landing. George Low (the guy responsible for coming up with the idea for Apollo 8's lunar orbit mission) pondered the question of why not just fly LM-5 (what became the Eagle) and let Stafford and Cernan make the first landing attempt rather then just going all the way to the moon and not try it. The option was given to Stafford as mission commander. Stafford nixed the idea and Gene had full knowledge of it and respected the decision. Stafford was a test pilot and knew that there is a reason why test flights are made. Landing or not, Apollo 10 had a full flight plan and they had many things they were going to be testing in order to make those unknowns known for the next crew. The people that would get the most benefit from Apollo 10 though were the mission controllers as Gene Kranz's white team and Charlie Duke the Capcom were the same guys that handled Apollo 11. As I recall, Tom Stafford wanted to make sure of that since he knew they would get the most use out of the data and put it into practice for the next flight.

Now, as to the question about "short fueling" the LM ascent stage, the reason is as follows: Apollo 10's flight profile had a lunar orbit change which took it close to the moon, but it did not slow down to the point where lunar gravity would make the trajectory a descent to the surface. There is no atmosphere on the moon to slow a craft down low, so a craft orbiting the moon could have an orbital perigee of only a few feet above the surface and still be traveling at orbital velocity (suicidal to do though).

In a takeoff from the surface, you are starting at a dead stop. The ascent engine has to do two things, get altitude and build velocity to orbital level. So the ascent module lifts off and immediately does a pitchover maneuver for the same reason a space shuttle stack today does. It does both in one burn, hence the amount of fuel it needs.

posted 08-20-2008 11:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hoonte:
To the why-didnt-Apollo-10-land question is a very simple answer: The program for the computer to land on the moon wasn't finished at the time.

---

posted 08-20-2008 12:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by RichieB16:
That, and LM-4 was simply too heavy.

---

That, and ... Hollywood didn't have the set ready for filming the "moon landing".