posted 03-05-2015 11:40 AM               

I think Deke and others in NASA management looked at the Apollo flights as primarily piloting-oriented as opposed to scientific expeditions. They felt the need for two experienced pilots whose flying instincts had been instilled over the course of a career spent flying high-performance jet airplanes, as opposed to individuals whose flying experience was secondary to their scientific careers. Test flying experience was highly preferable, which most of the lunar crew members had.

posted 03-05-2015 11:50 AM               

Apollo 17, titled "The Last Footprint," shows only Cernan as he makes his last footprint and steps onto the LM footpad; the rationale being that Schmitt has already ascended into the LM. So this allowed me to simultaneously be both historically accurate and eliminate Schmitt. First because he took the place of the guy who should have been there, X-15 pilot Joe Engle, and because being an ex-Air Force pilot myself... well here my argument gets a bit thin.

posted 03-06-2015 06:38 PM               

You're tasked with picking the best crews to GO TO THE MOON. You're a former test pilot yourself, as is almost all the other people you ever seriously considered for space flight.

What's the motivation to send a geologist up there, knowing it's your backside in the fire if something goes wrong and there's any perception that someone with test pilot training could have saved the day. And then, you have two dead men on the surface with no way to return the bodies to Earth.

posted 03-07-2015 12:02 PM               

Chuck Yeager was appointed to run the USAF Aerospace Research Pilot School in 1962 (whose name had just been changed from the USAF Flight Test School; getting rid of that nasty word "test"). Their job was to produce "astronauts for NASA and the Air Force." Yeager was under great pressure and was chastised for not recommending any minorities.

posted 03-08-2015 01:58 PM               

For any serious scientific work the crews in the spacecraft would have to include some scientists trained as astronauts rather than astronauts trained as scientific observers; and early in 1964 selection of scientists for the astronaut program began.

In the fall of 1965 Headquarters's Manned Space Science Division commissioned a study group to look into the matter of astronaut training. After some weeks of discussion with MSC officials, the group concluded that the astronaut training program was much too short on science. More scientist-astronauts should be brought in as early as possible, to provide more scientific resources for the manned space flight program. The scientist-astronauts should be used as in-house tutors for other astronauts who wanted to improve their scientific background.

posted 03-10-2015 07:24 AM               

The Apollo 13 mission was a very lucky break for NASA as it gave the crews that followed ample time to gain valuable geological experience. While it could be argued that the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 astronauts were not as qualified as a "professional geologist," I've never heard anyone complaint about the rocks those men collected, or the way they were collected.

On page 272 in his book, "To A Rocky Moon", the author, Don Wilhelms, goes as far as citing Dave Scott's commentary during his standup EVA as "the best geological description by an astronaut on the moon." Very high praise from a trained geologist. The book also compliments the other Apollo crews, especially Armstrong, who did excellent work selecting a large variety of rocks in a very short time. Wilhelms also states what many of us have heard, that the last three Apollo crews received what was equivalent to a Master's degree in geology before their flights. That includes the CMPs who made some amazing observations from lunar orbit. So basically, you had six scientists land on the moon, not just one.

Some here have wondered why select six scientists in 1965 only to land one on the moon? The answer is quite simple. Only one of the six was a geologist. The others were physicians and physicists, who were hired for what eventually became Skylab.

posted 03-10-2015 11:00 AM               

I presume if Michel had stayed with the program there was an excellent chance that he would have flown as Science Pilot on Skylab 3 or 4.

posted 03-10-2015 11:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by schnappsicle:
As for crew selections, Deke submitted his list to NASA HQ in Washington, who approved every crewmember for every mission except one.

---

posted 03-10-2015 11:42 AM               

In terms of geological exploration some crews stand out maybe - Scott in particular took the geological aspect of the mission extremely seriously - but all made a serious effort to learn about lunar geology.

posted 03-10-2015 04:57 PM               

I've talked to at last 3 maybe 4 of them who made it clear they were trained to be geologic observers. That is a long ways from being a geologist who could interpret what they observed.

posted 03-10-2015 08:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delta7:
I always wondered why NASA selected only one geologist in the 1960s. Selecting at least two would have made more sense and I doubt would have been a challenge to find another qualified one.

---

I've often wondered this to - and frankly in "Deke!" it's indicated that's what the Astronaut Office would have preferred. Slayton's initial stance when accepting scientists was geologists for lunar missions and physicians for long duration flights made sense - and he hoped for candidates to be gathered in each of those fields. The NAS felt that was too exclusionary, and the selection committee went for a broader pool of scientists.

I'm also guessing since only one other geologist (Tony England) was selected during the Apollo era - I suppose it was indeed that hard, but it wasn't just about finding someone qualified, they had to be motivated.

posted 03-11-2015 02:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCroft04:
Clearly the J missions were targeted to do science, and to not have sent a geologist would have been a travesty.

---

Contrary to public opinion, flying to the moon, performing long EVAs, and returning home safely was anything but a routine exercise. As has been mentioned already, the amount of things that could go wrong between liftoff and splashdown were countless, and as we saw with Apollo 13, things can go from absolutely nominal to a life-and-death struggle in a heartbeat. I can sympathize with those who, at the end of the day, wanted the best pilots with a vast swath of experience handling emergencies and "less-than-ideal" circumstances on those flights. Science is and always will be secondary to the safety of the astronauts. From Mercury on through, there are numerous examples of situations that were handled with cold-blooded nerves of steel. Cooper's re-entry. Heck, prior to that, Carpenter's re-entry. Schirra's Gemini launch day. Armstrong's incident with the Agena. Stafford and Cernan's near-unrecoverable situation in lunar orbit (although they did bring that emergency on themselves, they also did pull their bacon out of the frying pan). Apollo 13.

Those are just a few (of many) off-the-cuff, and more noteworthy, examples that we, luckily, will never know what would have happened if experienced test pilots weren't up there handling them.

posted 03-11-2015 03:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delta7:
If Schmitt had perished in a T-38 accident or had otherwise become unavailable there would have been no geologist to send to the moon.

---

posted 03-11-2015 10:03 PM               

Had Schmitt been the co-pilot on Gemeni 6, would anything have changed. I contend no. Wally would have made the same decision.

Could Schmitt have brought Aurora home safely? Doubtful. But then again it is unlikely that NASA would have sent a geologist on a Mercury mission.

posted 03-12-2015 12:28 AM            

My point was not that "Insert Schmitt into these situations and _____ happens" at all, however. Those were just examples of the kind of things that go wrong in spaceflight. There are literally thousands of other scenarios that not only didn't happen, but we haven't even pondered, that could have occurred in a lunar landing mission, that you would have wanted handled by someone who has been in life-and-death situations before.

posted 03-12-2015 07:53 AM               

For example, Cernan has said many times that he would not have found the orange soil that Schmitt found on Apollo 17. Maybe a pilot astronaut would have found it (Apollo 15 found green soil). But Schmitt was looking for geologic anomalies and did make a wonderful discovery. His on the moon interpretation was not correct, but those soils are unleashing amazing discoveries today with the advent of new analytical techniques.

posted 03-12-2015 02:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCroft04:
I suggest that it was worth the risk of something going wrong to get a geologist on the lunar surface.

---

posted 03-12-2015 04:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delta7:
Schmitt would have flown on Apollo 18 with Dick Gordon and Vance Brand.

---