Slashdot Mirror


Did an Unnamed MIT Student Save Apollo 13?

lukehopewell1 writes "When the Apollo 13 reported an explosion on board, NASA started a marathon effort to get the three astronauts home. Several options were considered, but history tells how flight director Gene Kranz ordered a slingshot around the moon. The story stayed that way for over 40 years, until this weekend when an ex-NASA press secretary came forward and said that an unnamed MIT grad student came up with the idea to slingshot the spacecraft around the moon. NASA reportedly buried his involvement at the last minute when it was discovered that he was a long-haired, bearded hippie-type.' Now the internet has gone on the hunt to find out who this unnamed hero really is."

19 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. GNU/Apollo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks RMS!

    1. Re:GNU/Apollo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I also live in Huntsville, Alabama. My father designed the navigation computer for the Apollo and you could say that the astronauts got the ride but my father did the driving even though he wasn't there. I love this crap coming up about some 14 year old thinking up sling shot. It is just a load of carp. Sling shot was always the option for emergency and in fact was actually tested on Apollo 8. It was just part of the design safety in the system. As to using the LEM for lifeboat, that sort of was invented by the Astronauts at the time. It was after all the only thing still working.

      We see all sorts of rewrite of history crap going on now days and I wish people would quit listening to it.

      Now if Slashdot wants to get its head out of its [you know where] and look into something amazing, they might want to look into the actions of Lewis Sinko who was documentation manager for the project Apollo. He knew that at the end of the project orders might come down having the documentation destroyed as it has happened with the early efforts in the mid 1950's. He literally stole the documentation at the end of the program and kept a room full of it in his house until he died in Huntsville, Alabama. Then as a result the documents were donated to the US Space and Rocket Center and subsequently they are now being preserved for posterity. Orders were sent down from President Nixon and President Ford to destroy the documents. Had Lewis Sinko not stolen the documents they would not exist and one of the greatest treasures in all history would not exist now. He saved what was probably the greatest national treasure of the USA from the 1900-2000 time frame from destruction by his heroic action.

  2. The Book said it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The way I remember the options at the time, the slingshot was always in The Book of plans. The path to the Moon for all Apollo flights was made in a way which tossed the craft back toward Earth unless the lunar injection burn was performed behind the Moon. I wrote about the main failure modes and options way back then.

    1. Re:The Book said it by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly, the whole TLI and Lunar transit process was designed to maximize the chances that the spacecraft would return to Earth by default. Nobody had to 'invent' anything. Truthfully the family of orbits that arise naturally out of the low energy Earth/Moon transfer largely have this property. Assuming your TLI burn works at all you're pretty much guaranteed to come back on flip side. Maybe someone from MIT flagged that option Kranz, but it sure wasn't some thing someone pulled out of their ass at the last minute. The question was only which option made sense, direct abort or a swing around the far side.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    2. Re:The Book said it by bwintx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes and no. The slingshot or "free-return" method was taken out of the default mission starting with Apollo 12 because it was believed that they could achieve a more accurate orbital path, and thereby lunar landing, that way. Remember that the Apollo 11 landing occurred roughly four miles off target, but it was the only one of the six eventual landings that didn't land where they'd planned. Getting back on free-return was always considered an option in case of an emergency, as occurred with Apollo 13. Working purely off memory, but I do know that getting on free-return was mentioned early on in the post-explosion hours. Oblig: Get off my lawn.

      --
      Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
    3. Re:The Book said it by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My guess is that the MIT student, if they existed at all, came up with some math that proved that the abort/return approach simply wasn't going to work for some reason (unable to achieve a viable angle for a sucessful reentry, perhaps) and that at least with the slingshot there was a chance.

      NASA analyzed the hell out of every inch of the trajectory pre-flight, *and* had a Mission Control position (RETRO) with a dedicated back room staff who spent the entire flight doing so in real time. If find it not only highly unlikely that NASA wouldn't know that at 'x' position along the trajectory they couldn't execute an abort - but even more unlikely that a MIT student would have the requisite deep understanding of the trajectory and the available computational resources to perform the required calculations within a few hours of the accident.
       
      It is true that MIT was involved in trajectory design and analysis, so it sounds like someone has taken that and expanded it into what amounts as an urban legend. (Also note the individual spreading the story was a junior staffer in NASA's PR department at the time of the accident - not connected with Mission Control at all.)

  3. Laslo? Was that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wondered where he'd gone off to...

  4. what a load of bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    0) Oh look, an opportunity to get hits while everyone's talking about the Mars landing;

    1) Every academic was a "long-haired, beared hippie-type" in the '60s, the following decade being essentially the '60s until the rise of neoliberalism and the resultant Oil Crisis. And all the decent academics (there are a lot more academics today, but most of them are shit) still are;

    2) The slingshot effect was well-known back then;

    3) Why turn this into a conspiracy? It's more likely that some MIT guy commented on the idea, but NASA did the hard work of getting the slingshot to work. Ideas are easy - workable implementations of ideas are hard;

    4) Thank goodness NASA is still around to do the scientific research. I was getting bored with stories about SpaceX doing a Boeing but giving the first hit for free.

    1. Re:what a load of bullshit by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...the rise of neoliberalism and the resultant Oil Crisis.

      WTF are you blabbering about?

  5. OMG by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was Bill Gates.

    Think about it: They needed to cover it up, so he was made (against his will) to shave his beard and start wearing suits.

    Gates vowed revenge for this, and what better way than to take over the world with computers and make the Curiosity rover run off a modified version of Windows Vista.

  6. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Doctor only saves British space missions.

    That's why no Englishman has ever died in Space.

  7. Sounds like revisionist bullshit to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I call bullshit on the "hippy thought it up" story.

    A slingshot around the moon for earth return trajectory was a well known and well-studied tactic long before the first unmanned probe was ever even sent to the moon. Slingshots are an elementary part of Orbital Mechanics, the formulas are published in college textbooks of the 1950's and the topic is well-discussed even in sci-fi books of the 30's and 40's.

  8. Re:If True: Shameful by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, you've got it all wrong! NASA buried the hippie's involvement to protect him...

    Do you know how awkward it would have been to return to his commune if the others learned that he'd been bailing out the military-industrial complex, man?

  9. Free Return trajectory by thomas.kane · · Score: 5, Informative

    Every Apollo mission up to 13 that went to the moon was already on a trajectory to return it to Earth via slingshot if there was an issue (i.e. SPS engine failed to fire for LOI). Shortly after TLI for Apollo 13, a burn was made to take Apollo 13 off this trajectory in order to reach Frau Mora (their landing site) at a specific time of the lunar cycle to provide good visibility for landing. The Apollo 13 loop around decision was very probably already on the books prior to the flight for just such an eventuality, and while any number of engineers (or hippies) could have initially developed such a burn, it is the flight director's (in this case Gene Kranz and others) who would ultimately review the procedure and make the final decision to perform the burn to return them to their free-return trajectory. To say that an MIT student "saved" Apollo 13 doesn't meet with the facts of the mission.

  10. We never thought of that! [Re:If True: Shameful] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hope NASA does the right thing and releases the fellow's name.

    While I always love to hear stories where MIT students are the heroes, I find this story a little odd. The lunar-swingby return trajectory was always the abort option. So I'm not sure what this article is implying-- a MIT student said "say, why doesn't NASA implement their backup plan?" and Gene Kranz said "the backup plan! That's it! We never would have thought of that!" ?

    With that said, it's worth noting that Apollo 13 had already modified their path from the initial free-return trajectory to one that required an engine burn to put them on the lunar-swingby return, in order to target the desired landing site. The important decision wasn't whether to make a burn to do the return; the real question was which engine to use, since it was not known (at the time) whether the explosion had damaged the main engine on the service module (turns out it had; and they made the right choice.)

    It was, of course, actually more complicated than that. IEEE Spectrum has a more detailed timeline and analysis: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/apollo-13-we-have-a-solution-part-2

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  11. Loop Around the Moon by wooferhound · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was 14 years old when Apollo 13 flew. I live in Huntsville Alabama and everybody here was keeping a Close Eye on the Apollo missions. But I remember the loop-around-the-moon plan was in place from the very beginning as a way to Bail Out of the mission and return to Earth without a Lunar Landing. After all, what other option is there. The unique part of the plan was to use the Lunar Module as a Lifeboat to get them back alive.

    --
    We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
  12. The Onion, 10/4/68 "Hippies, NASA Race for Moon." by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Funny

    The space race between NASA and the hippies is more heated than ever, with both of the astronautic super-powers vying to be the first to land a man on the moon. "NASA will win the race to the moon, and the world will see a United States astronaut, not a longhair, walk on the moon before the turn of the decade," Apollo 10 Mission Director Gus Lance said Thursday.

    Despite NASA's confidence, hippie-space-program sources report that the moon will be within their reach in mere months. "Freakonauts have already outdistanced NASA in their high rate of success with manned missions throughout the Tibetan Book of the Dead and cosmic voyages Beyond Total Awareness," said Freedog Osmosis, head of the prestigious Haight-Ashbury Center for Astraldynamic Research.

    "And current missions are flying higher than ever. Take me, for example. I'm sitting right in front of you. Yet, even as we speak, I'm orbiting at tremendous altitudes." "We are 12 to 16 weeks away from having all the vibes in place to launch, orbit and land a hippie on the moon," Osmosis said, "as well as to return him safely to a big oversized floor pillow after wear-off and subsequent crashpad re-entry burn."

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  13. Apollo 13? Doubt it. But Apollo 14? You bet... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The free return trajectory maneuver ("slingshot") was well known to NASA engineers, and was actually the default trajectory for all lunar missions before 13. The crew had to specifically fire the engines to enter lunar orbit. If the engines somehow failed to fire, the spacecraft was already on the proper trajectory to swing around the moon and return to earth . 13 was the first mission that was on a different initial trajectory, and required a change in order to get ONTO a free-return, but the "lunar slingshot" concept was obvious to all involved.

    The "long-haired hippie at MIT" who saved an Apollo mission was named Don Eyles, and the mission was Apollo 14. Picture of Eyles as he looked in those days here:

    http://pophop.tumblr.com/post/7532929166/m-i-t-programmer-don-eyles-posing-in-the-draper

    When a loose ball of solder inside the abort switch threatened to cancel the lunar landing, Eyles was called on to write a software patch that would bypass the switch and allow the landing to continue. Full story at the "LM Tales" section of his website, which is largely devoted to his post-Apollo artwork, photography, and sculpture.

    http://www.doneyles.com/supersymandala.html

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  14. Re:If True: Shameful by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope NASA does the right thing and releases the fellow's name.

    What I find dismaying is that you, and Reddit, and probably most of the rest of the 'net have already judged that a junior PR staffer not connected with mission control is telling the truth - and without any evidence or even bothering to ask if this is plausible, are pronouncing NASA guilty.