|
Author
|
Topic: Luck's part in US space program's success?
|
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 05-27-2011 09:36 AM
   
The recent poll about living to see a landing on Mars has set me thinking.Napoleon, before appointing a general, always asked, "Are you lucky?" Bearing in mind Apollo 13, Challenger and Columbia as well as other numerous near misses, how much of the overall success of the space programme in general has been down to luck? What do you think? Personally, I might be inclined to argue that it could be as high as 30%. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-27-2011 09:55 AM
Zero (unless one also believes in fairies). What is not the result of human error or environmental effects upon predictive outcomes can be otherwise attributed to entropically induced disorder and chaos. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 05-27-2011 10:09 AM
What's wrong with fairies?  I wonder if Tinkerbell knows she's merely entropically induced disorder and chaos. |
LM1
Member Posts: 667
From: New York, NY
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 05-27-2011 02:59 PM
I agree, ZERO luck involved in the manned space program, although there is a considerable amount of RISK in any mission. |
randy
Member Posts: 2176
From: West Jordan, Utah USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-27-2011 03:08 PM
I also think there's been a certain amount of luck involved. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-27-2011 04:22 PM
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.— Seneca, Roman dramatist, philosopher and politician |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 05-27-2011 04:25 PM
Well said Robert (and Seneca) |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 05-27-2011 08:18 PM
I guess it depends on your perspective, but in the oil drilling business I always contended that you have to give yourself the best chance of getting lucky. Anytime there is risk or uncertainty involved just about anything can happen. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 05-28-2011 01:56 AM
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
I can't argue with that. But being a simple soul I find it hard to understand why some respected members of this community say that luck, whether good or bad and by whatever definition, plays no part. To give a couple of examples - so it was entirely predictable that if an oxygen tank exploded on an Apollo heading towards the Moon, it would only do so when the LM was still attached; if a lump of insulating foam detached from the external tank during a shuttle launch, it was entirely predictable that it would be of sufficient size and from a location where it would impact and puncture critical heat shielding on the wing of the shuttle. To my simple mind one is an example of good luck, the other an example of bad luck. Neither was predictable surely. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-28-2011 06:17 AM
Nothing in life is predictable and as such, nothing in life relies on luck (good or bad). Things happen, or they don't happen, and it is as simple as that. What matters is how well we are prepared to respond to what happens, when it does. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 05-28-2011 06:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Neither was predictable surely.
Definition for "luck" (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, online version): "a force that brings good fortune or adversity"So, you are saying that if an event is not predictable then it is purely luck that determines the outcome? I am currently reading Tom Kelly's excellent book Moon Lander. In it, he describes how, early in the design process for the LM, a determination was made to increase the size of the storage tanks on the LM not to account for mission needs for its intended mission but to allow for the LM to be used as a lifeboat in the event such a dire situation should occur. Sounds to me like preparation in an effort to minimize the impact of potential unknowns that might occur during flight. Otherwise, they could have just designed the flight elements for the intended purpose and "hoped for the best". This will be my last post on this subject since I am 100% certain that no argument will satisfy the OP of this thread. Still, I believe that attributing the success of the US space program to "luck" is being entirely disingenuous. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 05-28-2011 11:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
nothing in life relies on luck
Tell that to a gambler in Vegas.  Luck is just our viewpoint of circumstance. If circumstance works in our favor, we often see it as good luck. If circumstance works against us, we see it as bad luck. NASA was able to control circumstance, to a degree, through design and training. What we view as good luck was most likely good design and good training. And for events of a truly random nature, you do what you can to minimize the risk...even if you can't completely eliminate the risk. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 05-28-2011 02:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
...a determination was made to increase the size of the storage tanks on the LM not to account for mission needs for its intended mission but to allow for the LM to be used as a lifeboat in the event such a dire situation should occur.
Good preparation as mentioned above is not luck - it's good sense. However, in the case of Apollo 13 if the explosion had happened at any time other than on the outward bound part of the mission, no amount of forward planning would have saved the crew. In this they were fortunate, i.e. lucky. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-28-2011 03:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Nothing in life is predictable(...)
The weather forecast is as bad in Houston than it is in Geneva? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-28-2011 04:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
However, in the case of Apollo 13 if the explosion had happened at any time other than on the outward bound part of the mission, no amount of forward planning would have saved the crew.
Partially incorrect. For example, had Odyssey/Aquarius attained lunar orbit, an unexpended LMDE had sufficient Delta V to place the LM/CM into trans-earth injection (under this scenario CM/SM separation might have had to occur in lunar orbit). Since the the benefit of the same problem solving rigor which was applied to the actual Apollo 13 event was not extended to mitigating a similar accident elsewhere along the flight timeline, we will never really know if shifting to the right/left would be survivable. And as a result of lessons learned, additional capacity was installed on subsequent SM's (forward planning) that expanded the recovery envelope from such an accident if it occurred on the return leg. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 05-28-2011 04:53 PM
As Gary Player (and many other golfers) have said: "The more I practise, the luckier I get."The space equivalent of endless driving and putting practice is endless simulations. It wasn't luck that let Armstrong and Aldrin fly safely through several 1201 and 1202 alarms. Steve Bales had run enough tests to know what to do. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 05-29-2011 01:06 AM
As Vonnegut wrote: I was the victim of a series of accidents, as we all are. As I wrote: "We humans plan for every imaginable contingency and then suffer the consequences of the unimaginable ones."There is an element of randomness (chance / luck / fortune, if you will) in everything. Suppose that the bombing of Peenemunde had killed von Braun? Or that it had been the Soviets who captured him in 1945. Or that JFK had survived his visit to Dallas in 1963. Would he have cancelled Apollo? Or suppose it had been an outboard engine (or two) that had failed on Apollo 13? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 05-29-2011 01:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Steve Bales had run enough tests to know what to do.
Just to put the record straight - it was Jack Garmon in the back room that made the call. Bales merely passed it on. And just found this posted by Robert in May 2008 - "It may seem incredible that in the world of manned spaceflight, of high-tech mission control and protocols for everything, there is a body of folklore, superstition, and tradition that is followed by each and every crewmember as if performing a sacred rite. Invocation of spirits of the dead, holy water, lucky card games, talismans, ritual words to be uttered at certain times -- it reads like the initiation into some secret lodge." It seems that some people within the space programme aren't prepared to leave anything to chance, luck or no luck. Meanwhile, I'm hanging on to my lucky rabbit's foot. I know it's the real thing as the rabbit was caught by a one-eyed man at midnight in a churchyard.  |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 05-29-2011 10:24 AM
Hmmm, the rabbit was not very lucky. |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 05-29-2011 11:30 AM
Part of the power of a talisman or good-luck item is that the act of thinking about it for even a moment refocuses your concentration. You're "luckier" thereafter because you are paying closer attention.There has been some very interesting research (see this article, for example) that demonstrates that people who are optimistic or consider themselves lucky actually do create their own luck! |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 05-30-2011 09:53 AM
Am re-reading "Chariots for Apollo" and on page 123, Joe Gavin's Law: "There's no such thing as a random failure."Coincidentally, there's a typo farther down the page! |
Kite
Member Posts: 831
From: Northampton UK
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted 05-30-2011 12:26 PM
Usually the people who are accused of being lucky are the ones who leave nothing to chance. |
moonguyron
Member Posts: 191
From: Trinity, FL USA
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 05-31-2011 05:19 PM
Didn't I read somewhere that in the lead up to Apollo 11 there was a last minute change out of the fuel cell(s) and in so doing they had to remove the O2 tanks to get to them. Since they where out they replaced the O2 tanks also. And that the original tanks were then installed in Apollo 13? Anybody remember seeing this? |
history in miniature
Member Posts: 600
From: Slatington, PA
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 05-31-2011 09:17 PM
I bet if you ask a fighter pilot or race car driver they may have a differing opinion concerning luck. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 06-01-2011 01:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moonguyron:
Didn't I read somewhere that in the lead up to Apollo 11...
I think you'll find that it was Apollo 10. |
John Charles
Member Posts: 339
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 06-01-2011 10:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Still, I believe that attributing the success of the US space program to "luck" is being entirely disingenuous.
A fascinating calculation of the risk of loss of crew and vehicle (LOCV) during shuttle missions was recently done by the JSC Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate. If one accepts their calculations, then each of the final shuttle missions are flying with about 1 chance in 90 of LOCV, while each of the first 25 missions had about 1 chance in 10 of LOCV! Those odds are only slightly better than Russian Roulette with a revolver. The fact that 24 missions flew successfully might be viewed by some as lucky. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1234
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 06-01-2011 11:26 PM
We all remember the numerous concurrences of 13's on the Apollo 13 flight. Mission number, launch time, accident date, etc. All of this was enough to convince a huge organization like NASA to move to the convoluted mission numbers of the early 80's when they realized they were going to have a STS-13 mission coming up.So even if luck is all imaginative interpretation of events, it can be motivating enough to change our course of action sometimes, and that in itself may lead to an entirely different outcome. Having said that, there have been a few times in my career when somebody said to me, "My gosh, you could have been killed!" My answer? "Yeah, but I wasn't." |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 06-02-2011 08:54 AM
I don't believe NASA changed their numbering system because of superstitious nonsense. If someone presents the "facts" that they did, I still won't believe it! |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 06-02-2011 09:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by John Charles:
...each of the final shuttle missions are flying with about 1 chance in 90 of LOCV, while each of the first 25 missions had about 1 chance in 10 of LOCV!
I remember reading in the early days of the shuttle programme that NASA reckoned that they might lose a crew once every 25 launches. This ties in very well with the latest research as quoted. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-02-2011 11:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Colin E. Anderton:
If someone presents the "facts" that they did, I still won't believe it!
The facts, as they were, were earlier presented here. |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 06-02-2011 01:55 PM
If NASA is run these days by people who believe that kind of rubbish, no wonder it isn't the organisation it used to be!I wonder what Gene Kranz would think to such crap?
|
spaceman
Member Posts: 1104
From: Walsall, West Midlands, UK
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 06-02-2011 03:43 PM
Calm down Colin, calm down. U.S. Presidents were not without similar worries; President Herbert Hoover would not permit a gathering of 13 while he was in the White House. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had the same superstition, and it is said that his personal secretary was often called upon to be the 14th guest at a dinner party. Many hotels and office buildings in Europe and the United States do not have a room number 13 or in some cases a 13th floor. Why tempt fate? There are a number of naval and aviation superstitions around the number 13 too why should the space corps be any different! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-02-2011 07:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Colin E. Anderton:
I wonder what Gene Kranz would think to such crap?
Kranz wasn't above believing in superstition. From his book, "Failure is Not an Option," describing the lead up to Gemini 9A: When I put this [splashy gold and silver] vest on, Kraft made a few wry comments. Looking up and through the glass into the viewing room, I could see people pointing. The vest had made a hell of an impact on the visitors; now I just hoped it brought my team and my crew a bit of luck....recording the liftoff time, I decided this new vest was really lucky. |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 06-03-2011 01:55 AM
There are such things as light-hearted comments. Are you seriously suggesting that they were anything more?And that the men in charge of Apollo would allow superstitious beliefs to actually affect their judgement? |
history in miniature
Member Posts: 600
From: Slatington, PA
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 06-03-2011 07:56 AM
Didn't Gene Kranz get a new vest from his wife for every launch? |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 06-03-2011 10:50 AM
But it was all light-hearted superstition - not to be taken seriously.Rewind some interviews with Jim Lovell before Apollo 13, and check if he was superstitious about the number 13. |
advertisement