Author Topic: Apollo minus the Fire  (Read 37511 times)

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
Apollo minus the Fire
« on: 01/12/2006 09:03 pm »
As the 39th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire approaches, can anyone share any insights into NASA's plans for the Moon landing had that flight taken place, as planned, in February 1967 and succeeded?

Had a 'definite' mission been pinned-down for the actual landing? I know Apollo 2 was more-or-less a repeat of Grissom, White and Chaffee's mission, but surely in the late-1967 or early-1968 timeframe a circumlunar mission and then a landing must have been expected? But which one would it have been? Apollo 4? Apollo 5 perhaps?

Also, judging from Slayton's crew rotation system, can any educated guesses be made as to who the 'original' first man on the Moon might have been? I know Grissom wanted a shot at it, but I doubt that he'd have been given two commands in the Apollo series. According to Andy Chaikin's book, Roger Chaffee was one of the most promising geology students. Was he a contender? Or would it still have come round to Armstrong?




Offline SpaceCat

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #1 on: 01/12/2006 09:16 pm »
I'm writing off the top of my head here- will have to consult the books for a definite answer- but things to bear in mind:  I'm not sure what the flight designation of that mission would have been- the vehicle was officially "AS-204"  and it was renamed Apollo 1 later on as a memorial to that crew.  There were several unmanned tests of Saturn V stacks- I think 4, 5 & 6 were among them so that the Schirra, Cunningham, Eisele mission became the first manned mission as Apollo 7.

Tony will remember- you around, Tony? :)

Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #2 on: 01/12/2006 09:19 pm »
There wouldn't have been a Moon landing before 1969 even if the AS-204 (Apollo 1) fire hadn't happened. The LM wasn't ready for a test flight until March of 1969, the Apollo 9 mission wound up being delayed from 1968 because of the LM.

It's hard to say just what NASA would have done after the scheduled launch of AS-204 in February of 1967. The Saturn V couldn't have flown much sooner than it's first manned mission in late 1968 so you would be looking at a fairly long period when nothing but LEO missions with a Saturn IB would have been possible.

John B. Dobbins

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 65
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #3 on: 01/12/2006 09:27 pm »
Well, each of the Apollo flights had an alphabetic designation. A and B was unmanned test flights, while C was the first manned  Earth orbital test flight of the CSM. D was the first manned low-Earth orbital test of the CSM and LM. E was the same as D, but in high Earth orbit. F was the dress-rehearsal for the first manned lunar landing, which was the G mission.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #4 on: 01/12/2006 10:05 pm »
So the first manned Earth-orbital ('C') flight, presumably, would have been Apollo-1? And the landing mission ('G') would have been Apollo-5?

Any ideas how the crew rotation system might have worked out for those?

Thanks to all

Offline SpaceCat

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #5 on: 01/12/2006 10:30 pm »
Just went through the shelves- thought somewhere in my library I'd have a chart of all the Apollo shots- unmanned & manned, on IB and V's... no such luck. But the sequence & nomenclature is detailed in text on page 206 of Gene Kranz's "Failure Is Not An Option."  

"In March, 1967, the mission designations were changed.  After the Apollo 1 fire, there would be no Apollo 2 or 3.  Two unmanned Saturn IB flight tests- AS201 and 202- were not redesignated with a sequence number.  The next mission after those two Saturn IB flights was designated Apollo 4, the first flight of the Saturn V."
......then he goes on to detail the letter sequencing.

As to the crew rotations- it's anybody's guess.  Maybe what you're driving at is- if Apollo 1 had flown successfully, would Armstrong still have been the first to set foot on the moon?  My guess is no- it could well have been Grissom.  Slayton swore to his dying day that the rotations were random, and based on the success of the previous mission.  i.e.- if the first "C" mission had some bugs, there would have been a C-2, C-3, etc. until things were ironed out and they could move on to "D", etc.   Still, Slayton & Grissom were close friends and I suspect somehow Deke would have made an effort to get him on the first landing- not just because of that, but for the national sentiment of seeing one of the 'original 7' go for it.  
While the official line had it 'random'- Chris Kraft pretty much says in his autobio that Armstong was purposely selected for his civilian status and 'all-American boy' image.  With Deke now gone- we'll probably never really know.

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #6 on: 01/12/2006 10:40 pm »
Well, if we're speculating, then if the Block One CM had worked, it would have eventually been replaced with the Block 2 version (which was moon-ready) possibly by the third flight. I never thought the proposed high earth-orbit test of CM-SM-LM had much chance of flying, only because of pressures, real or imagined, brought on by the Soviet program. And it was a "natural" to have been combined with another flight. But as noted above, other hardware/software problems were prevelant at the time so I agree that chances of an earlier moon landing mission were slim or non-existant.

As for crew assignments, prepare to go crazy. Go to:
http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/000244.html
and read speculations there. Mostly regarding Apollos 18-20, but with some talk about earlier alternative scenarios. Check autobiography of Slayton and book by David Shayler, "Apollo: The Lost and Forgotten Missions." It's a "verifiable myth" that Slayton would have offered the first landing mission to one of his Mercury comrades, at least anyone but Gordo Cooper. If Al Shepard's medical problem hadn't cropped up, he and Stafford would have flown first Gemini mission, not Grissom and Young. If Schirra hadn't bitched and moaned so much aboard Apollo 7, he was a natural to command a moon flight. If Grissom had lived, he would have defintely flown an early Gemini. Then Slayton would have been put in the position of deciding between Shepard and Grissom and Schirra for first landing. Borman and Apollo 8 crew were also said to have been offered first landing by Slayton, even though that would have broken Slayton's crew rotation plan.

The Apollo program could have been very different if Ed White had lived. Same goes for Charlie Bassett, who would have been the CMP on Apollo 8, according to Slayton. Elliot See, who died in the plane crash with Bassett, would have flown with Bassett aboard Gemini, and would have probably been tagged for a landing mission. Stafford, as good a pilot/engineer as he was, might have ended up bumping John Young on his later mission. And had Jim McDivitt not opted to enter management, he definitely was favored by the higher-ups to command a landing mission.

Offline GirlygirlShuttlefan

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #7 on: 01/13/2006 03:03 am »
It's easy for us youngers posters to forget about this, we tend to always talk about the two Shuttle disasters. These three astronauts need the same level of respect, so thanks for this thread.

Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #8 on: 01/13/2006 08:49 am »
Quote
GirlygirlShuttlefan - 12/1/2006  11:03 PM

It's easy for us youngers posters to forget about this, we tend to always talk about the two Shuttle disasters. These three astronauts need the same level of respect, so thanks for this thread.

There are more to remember than the 3 Astronauts who died in the Apollo 1 fire.

On 28 February 1966 we lost the prime crew for the Gemini 9 mission when they were flying into St. Louis for training at the McDonnell plant. The T-38 they were flying actually clipped the very building where the Gemini 9 capsule they were going to fly was in the final stages of assembly.

Less than a year later the Apollo 1 crew died in the fire during a training exercise.

Then on 6 June 1967 we lost Ed Givens in a traffic accident in Houston.

Next we lost Clifton Williams in another T-38 accident on 6 October 1967.

In just over 19 months NASA lost as many astronauts as it did in either of the Shuttle accidents.

That is just the NASA loses.

The Russians lost Vladimir Komarov on 24 April 1967 in the Soyuz 1 accident.

The Air Force lost 2 MOL astronauts, Mike Adams died on 15 November 1967 in the crash of one of the X-15s. Robert Lawerance died on 8 December 1967 in an F-104 crash.

10 good men gone in less than two years, and we damn near lost two more on the Gemini 8 mission.


John B. Dobbins

Offline Dana

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #9 on: 01/13/2006 10:52 am »
Don't forget astronaut Ted Freeman, killed as a result of a bird strike in a T-38 in the pattern at Ellington AFB on Oct. 31, 1964. Or the Georgi Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov, and Viktor Patsayev, the crew of Soyuz 11, who died when their Soyuz depressurized in June 1971. We mustn't forget Valentin Bondarenko, who perished in a pure-oxygen fire on March 23, 1961-just weeks before Yuri Gagarin flew. Nor should we forget that on March 27, 1968, the Soviet Union and the world lost a true hero for the ages-Yuri Gagarin himself, killed along with a check pilot in the crash of a MiG-15UTI.

http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/inmemorium.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/inmemoriamx20ampmolastronauts.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/spacecowboysaloon/inmemoriumx15ampliftingbodypilots.msnw
"Don't play dumb with me! You're not as good at it as I am!"-Col. Flagg

"'Second Place' is just the first loser."-Bobby Allison

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #10 on: 01/13/2006 11:28 am »
rsp,

Many thanks for the collectspace.com link. Moving off at another tangent (sorry!), it's always intrigued me how predictions of the Apollo 18-20 crews would have worked. If the general rule-of-thumb was that (a) no Apollo commander could lead more than one mission and (b) no man could walk on the Moon twice, there's a few problems:

How could Mike Collins have even been considered as backup commander for Apollo 14 and rotate into the command of Apollo 17? Surely, as Cernan had flown Apollo 10, he was already in front of Collins in the queue for the 14/17 slot anyway.

I can understand Gordon getting the command of Apollo 18 and Haise getting Apollo 19, but wouldn't 20 have then passed to Swigert, rather than Roosa? After all, Swigert had not landed on the Moon (nor would he have done as 13 CMP), and he was ahead of Roosa in the pecking order for later flights.

What about Anders from Apollo 8? He would have been ahead of Collins, Cernan AND Young. Why didn't he get a command? The same goes for Schweickart from Apollo 9. Donn Eisele, I think, was on the Apollo 10 backup crew, so obviously Slayton wasn't too annoyed with him over the Schirra debacle. Did they all rotate into Skylab? If so, why did none of them fly? Not wishing to doubt the final Skylab crew's abilities, but why fly an all-rookie crew when you have veterans available?

Lots of unknowns ;-)


Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #11 on: 01/13/2006 01:58 pm »
Good questions, all. Slayton and his successors at head of astronaut office had a dwindling number of missions to fill (at least until shuttle program came online) with a growing number of experienced and rookie fliers to choose from. Some were natural commanders, while others took up a somewhat mysterious pecking order within office. I guess we'll never know how much personal judgment vs. professional factored into his selection process. Natural attrition and untimely and tragic deaths changed things around a great deal, but no one can argue the crews he ultimately picked weren't competent to fill the missions available.

As for Collins, as an "icon" from Apollo 11, chances were he would never be allowed to fly again, and he was probably contemplating retiring anyway. For Anders, from what I understand, Slayton considered him more of an engineer than "flier," what with his background in nuclear engineering. So even though he was an AF flight instructor, I don't think it matched Slayton's criteria for commander. Walt Cunningham took an unfair hit from the Schirra flight, and even though he played a paramount role in structuring the Skylab program, never got another chance to fly. I feel most badly for Dick Gordon and Joe Engle for losing their moon missions due to budget cutting. It's also unfortunate that Stu Roosa lost his mission; he would have made an excellent commander. And Don Lind -- well, he only had to wait 19 years before getting his chance aboard the shuttle, after being bypassed for both Apollo and Skylab (though he got backup crew assigments).

Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #12 on: 01/13/2006 03:41 pm »
On the canceled flights, Apollo 20 was the first to get the ax, because they needed it's Saturn V to launch Skylab. If you want to guess who would have flown it you have to take Skylab out of the rotation.

For Apollo 17 Harrison Schmitt replaced Joe Engle in the rotation because he was due to go on the canceled Apollo 18. Without the change in plans you would have had Engle as LM pilot on Apollo 17 and Schmitt as LM pilot on Apollo 18. NASA was under a lot of preasure to fly scientists to the Moon, so there would have likely been another scientist astronaut as LM pilot on Apollo 19. The only other geologist in the astronaut corps was Anthony England and there would have been a lot of preasure to to put him on Apollo 19 as the LM pilot. England did leave NASA for a time, between 1972 and 1979, but I doubt he would have done so with a very good chance at getting a seat on Apollo 19.

John B. Dobbins

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #13 on: 01/13/2006 04:49 pm »
Moving on again, I understand there originally was a Skylab-5 crew (Brand, Lind and Lenoir) who were tipped for a 14-day mission sometime in 1975. What was the purpose of this mission and why was it cancelled?

Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #14 on: 01/13/2006 06:45 pm »
There was a problem with leaky thrusters on the Skylab 3 mission and Brand and Lind were selected to fly a rescue mission with an Apollo capsule modified to carry 5 astronauts back to Earth. Fortunately this mission never had to fly.

Also I recently saw Gene Kranz on a History Chanel show about Mission control, he said that he wanted another Skylab mission instead of the ASTP, but as far as I know it never went beyond that.

John B. Dobbins

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #15 on: 01/13/2006 07:55 pm »
Re: Apollo 20. There was talk or at least speculation at one point that Pete Conrad would get this flight (not that I ever heard he was pushing for it), targeted for the lunar badlands like Copernicus or the like. The only way this would have happened is if Dick Gordon had gotten Apollo 18 as originally planned. He would have jawed Conrad up one side and down the other if Conrad had scored another lunar landing before him. Perhaps this is what Dobbins was subtly suggesting earlier. If not, I apologize.

Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #16 on: 01/13/2006 08:17 pm »
If there had been no Skylab Apollo 20 would have had a scientist astronaut as the LM pilot. The science community was raising Hell about getting some of the scientist astronauts up and Apollo 18 through 20 would have almost certainly had scientists in the LM pilot seats. That reduces the number of seats for pilot astronauts on those three missions to 6 instead of nine. The Commanders would have likely all been veteran pilot astronauts, and I doubt that NASA would have let any one take a second Moonwalk. That leaves Conrad out regardless of the rotation. Rookie pilots would have likely been the CM pilots.

If you think the politics of flight selection during Apollo were bad, just wait until we start picking crews for the next round of Moon missions. On top of the jostling between the astronauts and the demands to send scientists to the Moon PC politics will enter the picture too. There will be a lot of pressure to get the first Woman on the Moon, the first Black on the Moon, etc, up as soon as possible. I don't envy the person who has to make those flight assignments.

John B. Dobbins

Offline Dana

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #17 on: 01/14/2006 12:17 am »
Quote
Ben E - 13/1/2006  9:49 AM

Moving on again, I understand there originally was a Skylab-5 crew (Brand, Lind and Lenoir) who were tipped for a 14-day mission sometime in 1975. What was the purpose of this mission and why was it cancelled?

For reason's I'll go into later, I've given a lot of thought to this....

There was discussion of flying this mission to reboost the station to a higher orbit (they knew it would decay, just not as soon as it did) and do a little more complete shut down of the station for long-term umanned operations pending the availability of the Shuttle, which at the time was planned to be operational by 1979. That and some science, of course. Now, how they would have reboosted it, I don't know. Do you guys think the CSM SPS engine would have been enough? There was a dedicated Skylab reboost module proposed for the Shuttle to carry in the payload bay; I believe the procedure would have involved using the arm to connect the module to the airlock, and return the Orbiter to earth and do the burn by remote command. I don't know if it would have been possible to fly the reboost module and CSM on the same Saturn IB for Skylab 5. I know they flew the ASTP CSM and docking module like that, with the latter module in the SIVB spacecraft adaptor shroud where a LM would have been carried on a Saturn V....The only way I'm thinking it could have worked is to do the proven transposition and extraction maneuver to extract the reboost module, rendezvous with Skylab, dock it to the airlock, back the CSM off, light the engine by remote command, and then do an SPS burn to change the CSM orbit and re-rendezvous with the station in the new orbit. They'd have to remove the module and re-dock the CSM, all of which takes a whole lot of propellant.....barring this, attach the module and then dock the CSM to one of the other ports on the airlock module once the reboost module was attached, transfer over and do the burn with the station manned, which had never been done before.....which kinda leads me back to thinking they were just gonna use the SPS for that Apollo-Saturn based mission. The only info I can find on Skylab 5 as proposed is here:

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/youelled.htm

....which doesn't give those kind of details.

Here's why I want to know;): without going into much detail, let's just say I have a writing project for which I really require this information. :) Does anybody know where I can find it?
"Don't play dumb with me! You're not as good at it as I am!"-Col. Flagg

"'Second Place' is just the first loser."-Bobby Allison

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #18 on: 01/14/2006 12:29 am »
Quote
Ben E - 13/1/2006  7:28 AM

How could Mike Collins have even been considered as backup commander for Apollo 14 and rotate into the command of Apollo 17? Surely, as Cernan had flown Apollo 10, he was already in front of Collins in the queue for the 14/17 slot anyway.
Hi Ben,

Even though the thread has slightly passed this by, couple of notes about this (most of which is referred to in Slayton's autobiography):

The CMP was considered the #2 seat on the crew -- in part or in most part because the command module pilot was going to have to fly the CM in lunar orbit during the LM "sortie."  (The little tidbit in the recent Neil Armstrong biography about Slayton's offer to put Jim Lovell on the Apollo 11 crew illustrates some of this thinking.)  

Also remember that Collins was the CMP on Apollo 8 -- he only lost the seat because he needed surgery.

The premise that Collins would go back into the rotation as the backup commander for Apollo 14 was based on what Slayton wrote/said.

As another aside/tangent, one of the most interesting "what ifs" to me was the proposed AS 207/208 mission (later on AS 205/208):
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch8-5.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/v4p1a.htm

Quote
(Excerpts from 'Chariots for Apollo')

Even before Gemini had chalked up the world's first docking, the successful rendezvous of Gemini VI-A with VII the previous December had affected the thinking of Apollo mission designers. The inability of the Saturn IB to toss the command and service modules and the lunar module into orbit together had forced planners to consider "LM-alone" flights. Gemini's successful dual missions suggested that it might be possible to launch a crew aboard a command module to hunt down a lunar module launched by a different Saturn IB. Two of the crewmen would then transfer to the lander and carry out an earth-orbital operation previously planned for a Saturn V flight.

Although the dual flight for Gemini had been greeted with enthusiasm, the proposal for an Apollo tête-à-tête met with resistance. John D. Hodge, Kraft's chief lieutenant in the mission control trenches, said there would be problems in simultaneously tracking four booster stages and in operating two mission control rooms. Planning continued, anyway, and Howard Tindall started working up flight rules - such as which launch vehicle would go first, the one with the command and service modules (AS-207) or the one with the lunar module (AS-208). A spate of "Tindallgrams" ensued. By May, Tindall agreed with Hodge about the complexity of the proposed mission.

Philip Sloss

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #19 on: 01/14/2006 12:59 am »

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #20 on: 01/14/2006 01:18 am »
I got the impression from Collins' statements and other reference material that he was set to retire after Apollo 11 rather than get back in the queue, which was changing all the time anyway.

Cernan gave up a sure-thing right seat on Apollo 16 to command his own mission. Apollo 17 escaped the budget axe, so it turned out to be the right choice for him. By the time Apollo 17 flew, he probably knew more about LM systems than any other pilot, which may have been overriding reason Slayton let him fly rather than giving mission to Dick Gordon, and despite the fact Cernan flew a helicopter into Banana River during training.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #21 on: 01/14/2006 01:31 am »
Quote
rsp1202 - 13/1/2006  9:18 PM

I got the impression from Collins' statements and other reference material that he was set to retire after Apollo 11 rather than get back in the queue, which was changing all the time anyway.
According to what I've read, that's basically correct, but the impression I get is that Collins didn't publicly announce any of that until after the flight...whereas what I've read Slayton "say" about it, he informally broached the idea of the backup 14 CDR seat with Collins before the flight and that Collins told him at that point about his plans.

By the way, Collins' book ("Carrying the Fire") is wonderful -- a must-read in my mind.

Philip Sloss

Offline Dana

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #22 on: 01/14/2006 01:39 am »
Thanks! I favorited those pages for future use.
"Don't play dumb with me! You're not as good at it as I am!"-Col. Flagg

"'Second Place' is just the first loser."-Bobby Allison

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #23 on: 02/15/2006 05:28 am »
Hi, everyone -- I'm new to this forum, though some of you may have seen my posts on other fora.  I've read just about every word ever published about Apollo, and was alive (though a teen-ager) during that era, so I think I can contribute a little bit, here.

Michael Cassutt's book, "Deke!" is one of your best sources on the crew selection process during Gemini and Apollo.  So, to address what the thinking was at the time, using info from the aforementioned book (plus many other sources), here's what was happening:

Apollo 1 was to fly in February, 1967.  Up until December, 1966, the Apollo 1 prim crew was Grissom (CDR), White (Senior Pilot) and Chaffee (Pilot), while the Apollo 1 back-up crew was McDivitt (CDR), Scott (SP) and Schweickart (P).  The prime crew of Apollo 2 was Schirra (CDR), Cunningham (SP) and Eisele (P), with a back-up crew of Borman (CDR), Stafford (SP) and Collins (P).

No mission past Apollo 2 was assigned a crew at that point.  Apollos 1 and 2 were both Block I CSM-only flights, involving no LM and using Saturn IBs for launch into LEO.  The first Block II flight was anticipated to be Apollo 3, with a CSM launched on one Saturn IB and a LM launched on a second Saturn IB.  Since this one couldn't fly until at least late 1967 or early 1968, Deke was considering altering his crew rotation for this early phase of Apollo and moving the Apollo 1 back-up crew of McDivitt, Scott and Schweickart onto the prime crew of Apollo 3, skipping only one flight between back-up and prime.

In December of 1966, NASA decided to cancel the second Block I CSM flight, then called Apollo 2.  Apollo 1 would be the only manned Block I flight.  At this point, the guys at NASA HQ Washington were re-thinking the Apollo mission numbering plan, and changed all of the official references to the Block I flight from Apollo 1 to AS-204 (the designation it always held).  Grissom was pushing hard to keep Apollo 1 as the official designation, but the final decision had not been made at the time of the Fire.

When Apollo 2 was canceled, the following mission was to have been the dual Saturn IB flights with the CSM on one and the LM on the other.  (At first, these flights would have been AS-206 and AS-207, so the overall mission was often referred to as AS-267.  Later, it was re-designated as AS-207/AS-208, or AS-278.)   Deke could have given this mission to Schirra's crew, but he didn't -- he thought that McDivitt's crew was a better choice.  So he put Schirra's crew in as Grissom's back-ups, only two months prior to the scheduled Apollo 1 launch, and re-assigned McDivitt's crew to AS-278.  Schirra got really upset and nearly quit the astronaut corps when this happened, but Deke talked him down and got him to accept the new assignment.

In the meantime, Borman's crew (which had been backing up Schirra's Apollo 2 crew) was shaken up.  Stafford was taken off Borman's crew and given his own crew of John Young and Gene Cernan (who had just come off Gemini duty), and Stafford was replaced on Borman's crew by Bill Anders.  Mike Collins had started out as the LMP on Borman's crew (on those early Block I crews, the Senior Pilot was the CMP and the Pilot was the LMP), but because Anders was a rookie who had never flown a rendezvous mission in Gemini (or any mission, for that matter), he was ineligible, under Deke's rules, to become the CMP.  So Collins was switched from the LMP position to the CMP position, and at that point lost his first and best chance to land on the Moon.

For the brief time that NASA was planning to move directly from AS-204 to AS-278, the third manned Apollo flight was tentatively planned to be the first manned flight of the Saturn V, but the actual mission plan for this flight wasn't really set.  That's the flight Deke gave to Borman's reconstituted crew, and for about a month or so, Pete Conrad's original Apollo crew of Dick Gordon and C.C. Williams was Borman's back-up.

So, as of late December, 1966, the new crew/flight schedule was:

AS-204 Prime:    Grissom (CDR), White (SP), Chaffee (P)
AS-204 Backup:  Schirra (CDR), Cunningham (SP), Eisele (P)

AS-278 Prime:    McDivitt (CDR), Scott (CMP), Schweickart (LMP)
AS-278 Backup:  Stafford (CDR), Young (CMP), Cernan (LMP)

AS-503 Prime:    Borman (CDR), Collins (CMP), Anders (LMP)
AS-503 Backup:  Conrad (CDR), Gordon (CMP), Williams (LMP)

Now, if there had been no fire, and no post-fire re-design of both the CSM and LM, then it is *possible* that AS-278 could have flown by late 1967.  AS-503 would then have flown, probably a repeat of AS-278 but all launched in one package, in mid-1968.  According to Deke's rotation, then, AS-504, with Schirra's crew, would have flown an Apollo 10-like mission in third quarter 1968, and according to rotation, Stafford's crew might have attempted a lunar landing on AS-505.  BUT -- Deke has also said that, had Grissom lived, he would have been the first man on the Moon.  So Grissom would have commanded AS-505, but he likely would have had a different crew.  Deke felt that White and Chaffee were good enough for an early Apollo check-out flight, but wanted the guys he felt were superior to White, Chaffee, Eisele, Cunningham and Schweickart flying on the early landing missions.

Deke never speculated about who he would have given Grissom for a crew, but my guess is that he would have tried to talk McDivitt into being Gus' LMP.  I say this because Deke tried to talk McDivitt into being Al Shepard's LMP.  I also think McDivitt, after commanding two missions, might well have turned down taking the number three seat behind Grissom, even if it did mean being one of the first men to set foot on the Moon.  It's hard to say, though.
Now, unlike what you saw in the HBO miniseries, Owen Maynard did not come up with the A through J mission designations until April of 1967, a good two months *after* the Fire.  They were heading in that direction before the Fire, and so could well have made the first lunar landing attempt on AS-505.  But the whole C-mission, D-mission, etc., routine didn't exist until after the Fire.

Of course, after the Fire, everybody's crew shifted up one.  Deke exercised the backup crew process and gave Schirra, Cunningham and Eisele Apollo 7 (as the new designations were made), and the old AS-278 backup crew of Stafford, Young and Cernan moved up to back up Schirra's crew.  McDivitt's crew remained the prime crew for the second manned Apollo flight, but the delay engendered by the Fire meant that they could plan on launching it in one shot on AS-503.  Borman's back-up crew of Conrad, Gordon and Williams moved up and became McDivitt's back-up crew.  Borman now had AS-504, and was assigned a backup crew of Armstrong, Lovell and Aldrin.

These three prime and backup crews for the first three Apollo missions were specifically the "people in this room" to whom Deke Slayton announced that they would be making the first Moon landings.  That meeting did happen, as portrayed in the HBO miniseries -- it just happened *after* the Fire, and of course Grissom, White and Chaffe were not there.

Now, let's skip ahead to the end of Apollo.  When Apollo was planned out to Apollo 20, Deke had a system in place that he was going to try and follow.  He made esceptions to it, but the basic plan to generate Apollo commanders was that you could go from a prime CMP to a backup CDR to a prime CDR.  This was the preferred route to flow through the system and become an Apollo CDR.  It was followed by (in order) Jim Lovell, Dave Scott and John Young, and Deke tried to get Mike Collins to plug into the same rotation.  Collins is the only one of that group (the Apollo 8-11 CMPs) who turned Deke down.  Dick Gordon flowed through the rotation the same way, but his command, Apollo 18, disappeared out from under him.

Deke tried to plug Bill Anders into the same process, making him backup CMP for Apollo 11.  Under the original plan, Anders would then have been the Apollo 14 prime CMP, the Apollo 17 backup CDR, and the Apollo 20 CDR.  After NASA HQ forced Shepard to swithc places with Lovell, that would have pushed Anders' line up one flight, but Anders didn't want to have to wait for an Apollo 19 or 20 just to get his chance to land on the Moon.  He realistically (and correctly) decided that there might not ever be an Apollo 19 or an Apollo 20, so he left NASA even before Apollo 11 (for which he was officially the backup CMP) flew.  By the time Apollo 11 was launched, Ken Mattingly had taken over most of Anders' duties and was the de-facto backup CMP.

Once he lost Anders, Deke decided to just do away with his rule about CMPs needing to be veterans who had previous rendezvous flight experience.  That opened the door for Mattingly and Roosa to get the prime CMP slots on Apollos 13 and 14.  Note that, had Slayton and Shepard not been overruled by NASA HQ, Shepard-Roosa-Mitchell would have flown before Lovell-Haise-Mattingly.  And Roosa was the *only* Apollo crewman (other than Shepard himself) who served on a prime crew without even *once* serving on a backup crew.

Roosa, perhaps not coincidentally, was also the guy at the "Stony" console (the CapCom console in the Saturn blovkhouse at the Cape) at 6:30 pm EST on January 27, 1967.  Stu and Deke were both in the Pad 34 blockhouse that night, and they shared the raw pain of that night.  I think Deke really respected Stu after that, and so Stu got a perk -- a prime crew CMP slot as soon as one came up.  And a slot in the rotation that would have made him the only guy in his astronaut class to command a lunar landing mission.

If you look at Deke's original intent as of mid-1968 for the CMPs through Apollo 14 (which, in his Commander-grooming sub-rotation, selected the commanders out through Apollo 20), you would see that Deke wanted the following:

Jim Lovell -- Apollo 8 prime CMP, Apollo 11 backup CDR, Apollo 14 prime CDR
Dave Scott -- Apollo 9 prime CMP, Apollo 12 backup CDR, Apollo 15 prime CDR
John Young -- Apollo 10 prime CMP, Apollo 13 backup CDR, Apollo 16 prime CDR
Mike Collins -- Apollo 11 prime CMP, Apollo 14 backup CDR, Apollo 17 prime CDR
Dick Gordon -- Apollo 12 prime CMP, Apollo 15 backup CDR, Apollo 18 prime CDR
Stu Roosa -- Apollo 13 prime CMP, Apollo 16 backup CDR, Apollo 19 prime CDR
Bill Anders -- Apollo 14 prime CMP, Apollo 17 backup CDR, Apollo 20 prime CDR

Of course, when the Shepard - Lovell crew switch was forced, this would have switched Anders and Roosa, giving Anders command of Apollo 19 and Roosa command of Apollo 20.  When Anders and Collins declined to participate in this rotation, Deke replaced them with experienced LMPs -- Haise replaced Anders, and Cernan replaced Collins.  But, had the program been flown out through Apollo 20, I am convinced that Deke would have stuck to this rotation, and Apollos 18, 19 and 20 would have been commanded by Dick Gordon, Fred Haise and Stu Roosa.

As much as Pete Conrad wanted a second lunar landing, he wasn't going to get one.  You got one, that was it.  Deke was pretty adamant about that.

As for Tony England being the Apollo 20 LMP -- yeah, he would have been a great choice, and the scientific community might have pressured NASA HQ into pressuring Deke into doing it.  But IIRC, Deke had Bill Pogue penciled in as the LMP on Apollo 19 and Don Lind as the LMP on Apollo 20.  Jack Lousma and Paul Weitz were the CMPs he had in mind for those flights, IIRC.  (I'm into somewhat dim memory on those particulars, though I'm almost positive that's the pool he was going to select the CMPs and LMPs from for the last two missions.)  He would have to have been forced to leave one of those guys behind to fly Tony England.  But it may well have happened.

Of course, there is one more what-if to go in here -- if Apollo had flown out to Apollo 20, and was active up until, say, 1974 (which was one of the options -- fly lunar missions through 1972, then take a two-year break for Skylab, then fly the final three or four lunar missions in 1974 and 1975), then Deke Slayton himself would have been medically cleared to fly before Apollo ended.  I can see Deke assigning himself as commander of Apollo 20, and being overruled by NASA HQ and demoted to CMP.  Can you imagine, though -- Deke Slayton, the intrepid lone wolf, circling the Moon in his command module (named Delta 7), while Stu Roosa and Tony England explored the surface beneath... it would have been a fitting end for Apollo.

-Doug
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline Sergi Manstov

  • NSF Russian Editor
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #24 on: 02/15/2006 09:07 am »
Welcome to the site Doug.

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #25 on: 02/16/2006 12:34 am »
Fascinating stuff, Doug.

Forgive me, but I've got a couple of queries:

I can now understand why Collins would have been pencilled-in as backup Apollo 14 CDR and prime Apollo 17 CDR, judging from his position as prime Apollo 11 CMP. But why did Cernan 'break the mould' by getting the backup 14 CDR slot and, ultimately, the prime 17 CDR slot, after serving as prime LMP (not CMP) on Apollo 10?

At first, I thought, maybe it's just that Collins had already resigned and Cernan was pushed forward to fill his shoes, but if that was the case and your CMP-to-CDR rule applied, wouldn't that automatically result in a roster as follows:

Dick Gordon - Apollo 12 prime CMP - Apollo 14 backup CDR - Apollo 17 prime CDR
Jack Swigert - Apollo 13 prime CMP - Apollo 15 backup CDR - Apollo 18 prime CDR
Stu Roosa - Apollo 14 prime CMP - Apollo 16 backup CDR - Apollo 19 prime CDR
Al Worden - Apollo 15 prime CMP - Apollo 17 backup CDR - Apollo 20 prime CDR

Further, if, as you imply, being a CMP carried more seniority, then why was Haise assigned as Apollo 16 backup CDR and Apollo 19 prime CDR, without ever having flown as a prime (or even backup) CMP at any point in his career? Same goes for Cernan.

Second question: The early Gemini and Apollo flights are unusual, compared to today's Shuttle, because astronauts with CDR experience could be 'demoted' to junior positions. Take Young, who was CDR on Gemini 10 and demoted to CMP on Apollo 10 and Lovell, who was CDR on Gemini 12 and demoted to Senior Pilot on Apollo 8. Why did Slayton do this? Especially as Young and Lovell were actually more 'senior', in terms of number of flights and days-in-space, than their Apollo CDRs. Did it cause any animosity among the astronaut corps?
 


Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #26 on: 02/16/2006 12:51 am »
A16 Young/Mattingly/Duke - Haise/Pogue/Carr
A17 Cernan/Evans/Engle - Roosa/Lousma/Lind
A18 Gordon/Brand/Schmitt - Replacement for A15 Crew needed
A19 Haise/Pogue/Carr - Young/Mattingly/Duke
A20 Roosa/Lousma/Lind - Cernan/Evans/Engle

SL2 Conrad/Weitz/Kerwin - Schweickart/Truly/Musgrave
SL3 Bean/McCandless/Garriott - Schweickart/Truly/Musgrave
SL4 Cunningham/Crippen/Gibson - Schweickart/Truly/Musgrave

If Apollo 13 was landed: A19 Swigert/Pogue/Carr                                                                         (with ORIGINAL crew flying in Apollo 13:Mattingly/Pogue/Carr)

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #27 on: 02/16/2006 04:27 am »
Good questions, Ben.

First, don't let Swigert skew the discussion.  Deke's CDR-development sub-rotation was only valid for prime CMPs through Apollo 14, since the Apollo 14 CMP would skip two flights, back up the Apollo 17 CDR and command Apollo 20.  There was never a plan for anything beyond Apollo 20, so the CMPs assigned to the prime crews past Apollo 14 weren't part of that CDR-development sub-rotation.

And Jack Swigert was planned to be the prime CMP of Apollo 16.  Not Apollo 13.  He was never being considered for a later command.  So even if Deke was planning on grooming Mattingly and Roosa to command Apollos 19 and 20, the German measles scare that grounded Mattingly sent Deke's plans into disarray.  And the abort of Apollo 13 meant that Deke could assign its LMP to command a lunar landing mission, since he wouldn't be giving anyone a second lunar landing.  Personally, I think that when Collins and Anders turned Deke down for being pressed through the development process, Deke gave up on maintaining it in the form he had designed and opened his mind up to giving his more senior LMPs a shot at commands.

As for why Deke gave Fred Haise the Apollo 16 backup CDR slot instead of some other astronaut, preferably a former CDR or CMP, that has to do with individual ability, I think.  Mike Collins states in "Carrying the Fire" that Haise was considered the best, most outstanding candidate in his astronaut group.  He was the first of his group to be assigned to a crew (backup LMP on Apollo 8, after the Collins/Lovell switchout), and was the first of his group to fly.  Had Haise not replaced Lovell on the Apollo 8 backup crew, he would have been the backup LMP on Apollo 10 instead of Ed Mitchell.  So, since Fred was the number one guy in his class, he was naturally the first guy of his class that Deke would consider for a command.

And as for Gene Cernan -- Deke originally wanted to put Cernan on as John Young's LMP on Apollo 16.  Cernan turned him down and told him he wanted a command of his own.  He'd rather not walk on the Moon at all if he couldn't do it as commander of his own flight.  At that point, Deke figured that Gene had lost his only chance to land on the Moon, but then Mike Collins turned Deke down for backup CDR of Apollo 14.  Deke might have given the Apollo 14 backup CDR slot to one of the previous Apollo commanders -- Jim McDivitt or Tom Stafford would have been available -- but Stafford had agreed to run the Astronaut Office while Al Shepard was training for Apollo 14, and Jim McDivitt got so frakked off at Deke for being offered the LMP slot on Shepard's crew that he quit the astronaut corps and took over as the head of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (ASPO).

Before Deke gave in and offered the job to Cernan, he even tried to get Gordo Cooper to take it.  Cooper not only dismissed it out of hand, he got *reallly* angry that Al Shepard had bumped him out of his own slot.  Cooper was backup CDR of Apollo 10, with Donn Eisele as his CMP and Ed Mitchell as his LMP.  If the rotation were followed strictly, the Apollo 13 crew would have been Cooper-Eisele-Mitchell, and the Apollo 14 crerw would have been Lovell-Anders-Haise.  But Eisele was eased out of the program after a messy divorce, Anders left before his backup stint on the Apollo 11 crew was even finished, and Deke didn't *ever* think he was going to be able to sell Cooper commanding an Apollo flight to NASA HQ.  When Al Shepard became available, Deke had no problems replacing Cooper with Shepard, though it frakked Cooper off no end.  So, Deke's original crew recommendations for Apollo 13 and 14 were Shepard-Roosa-Mitchell and Lovell-Mattingly-Haise.  NASA HQ forced Deke to switch out the two crews, on the assumption that Shepard needed more training time, having never served as a prime or backup crew member on any Apollo flight.  And at the time, Apollo 13 was scheduled to fly in late 1969, with Apollo 14 flying in early 1970, so there was some validity to the argument.

Getting back to the backup CDR of Apollo 14 -- Deke didn't consider Cunningham, Eisele or Schweickart as commander material, and he didn't want to give anyone two lunar landings.  And Dick Gordon was already locked into his own cycle, assigned as backup CDR for Apollo 15 and assumed to be moving to prime CDR of Apollo 18.

So, that left Cernan.  Deke had simply run out of qualified people to take the Apollo 14 backup CDR job.

Cernan's selection as Apollo 14 backup CDR did not meet with universal approval.  Jim McDivitt told Deke that Cernan was flat-out unqualified, and that he (McDivitt) would quit NASA before he allowed Cernan to command a flight.  And McDivitt did -- he left NASA in the summer of 1972, before Apollo 17 flew.

While Cernan put in a very fine performance on Apollo 17, there was some justification for McDivitt's concern.  Cernan had screwed the pooch more often than most of the guys in his class, and had a manner that didn't sit well with his superiors.  There was actually considerable pressure put on Deke to drop Cernan's crew out of the rotation altogether and give Apollo 17 to Dick Gordon's Apollo 15 backup crew (Gordon-Brand-Schmitt).  Deke acceded to the pressure to get Jack Schmitt on a landing mission, but he stuck to his guns and kept Cernan and Evans.  I'm not so sure that Cernan would have survived the pressure and retained Apollo 17, if it weren't for the fact that he had been given the unenviable task of backing up Alan Shepard on Apollo 14.  Shepard wasn't an easy man to work with, much less serve as understudy for.  I think Geno surprised and impressed Deke with the energy and attitude he brought to the Apollo 14 backup CDR job, and earned Deke's support.

By the way, Ben, the problem with your proposed rotation is that you're having people skipping only one flight between backup and prime.  The rotation was always a two-flight skip -- the backup CDR of Apollo 14 would command Apollo 17, for example.  You have Al Worden skipping one flight -- Apollo 16 -- to be backup CDR of Apollo 17.  That wasn't how the rotation worked.

Like I say, I think that if Deke had his way, he wouldn't have given any of his LMPs a shot at command.  But he literally ran out of people who had served as prime CMPs, and so he took his only two experienced LMPs who had never actually made a lunar landing and gave them commands.  And considering that he gave Fred Haise command of the Apollo 16 backup crew before Apollo 19 was canceled, he did so with the thought in mind of giving Haise a prime CDR slot on a real lunar landing mission.  Granted, after Apollo 19 was canceled, Deke pulled Haise's Apollo 19 crew and spread them through the Skylab crews, giving Haise an experienced crew of Ed Mitchell and Stu Roosa to fulfill the backup roles.  But, as Carmelo pointed out (thanks for the memory job, Carmelo!) Jerry Carr would have been Haise's CMP and Bill Pogue his LMP on a real Apollo 19.

-Doug
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #28 on: 02/16/2006 04:47 am »
Thanks, Sergi!

-Doug
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #29 on: 02/16/2006 11:12 am »
All this could have, would have, should is an exercise in fulitity. Other incidents would had arisen that would have altered plans.   It would be just like "what if Challenger never happen" or if "Shepard beat Gargin"

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #30 on: 02/16/2006 01:22 pm »
You are quite right, Jim. Had Shepard launched before Gagarin, maybe Kennedy would not have felt pressurised to make his "We choose to go to the Moon" speech. Then again, even if Shepard had beaten Gagarin into space, he wouldn't have beaten him into ORBIT, which might still have necessitated Kennedy's speech. The Redstone was a puny, 115-mile-high lob, compared to Gagarin's complete circuit of Earth.

Doug, can I return to my other question: was there any animosity among astronauts like Young or Lovell, who were, in effect, 'demoted' from CDR positions in Gemini to CMP/Senior Pilot positions in Apollo? Take Young for example: he was the first Group 2 astronaut to fly, thus more 'senior' than Stafford, and yet flew as CMP to him on Apollo 10. Both had the same number of flights, both had rendezvous and docking experience from Gemini. Why was Stafford the CDR and not Young?

Same goes for Lovell. Although, admittedly, he flew as PLT to Borman on Gemini 7 when both were making their first flight, Lovell later flew as CDR of another Gemini with rendezvous and docking and was actually making his third flight on Apollo 8 (Borman was only on his second mission). I'm aware that Lovell was actually a replacement for Mike Collins, but even if that hadn't been the case, why would he not have automatically received his own Apollo backup, then prime, CDR position after Gemini 12? Were Borman and Stafford considered 'better' CDR material than Young and Lovell?

Compare that to the Shuttle situation today. I doubt that, after following the route of two flights as PLT and then getting a CDR slot, a veteran Shuttle CDR would hardly countenance going back down to PLT again.




Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #31 on: 02/16/2006 07:58 pm »
I'd be interested in knowing the answer, too. What exactly constituted a "natural" commander in Slayton's/NASA's minds? McDivitt was considered one, and so was Borman (not to mention any of the Original 7 barring Carpenter). It was more than just stick-and-rudder talent and engineering smarts, no?

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #32 on: 02/17/2006 03:36 am »
Good questions -- even in his biography, Deke doesn't give all that many clues to his thinking in terms of what made someone a really good CDR, and what didn't.  For example, Ed White was the backup commander of Gemini VII, but Deke pulled him out of the rotation before Gemini X flew and put him in a non-CDR slot in Apollo.  There were comments at the time that White was acting "political" in the astronaut office, like he was trying to build a base he could parlay into a political career after he left NASA.  Deke apparently didn't like any of "his boys" engaging in any form of self-aggrandizement, and there were rumors that White was pulled from his Gemini command because of this.  All Deke said was that he needed White on Apollo -- he never gave any other reasons.  But he also stated *very* specifically that, except for the CDRs, he crewed the first Apollo flights with his "second-string" guys, guys he didn't think were strong enough to crew the moon landings.  And he put White into that category, along with Chaffee, Eisele, Cunningham and Schweickart.

Al Bean is a good example of someone who *seemed* to be a really weak guy in Slayton's system, but who ended up being one of his top guys.  As of mid-1968, Bean was the only guy in his class who had never been assigned to a prime crew.  Pete Conrad had asked for his old friend Al Bean for his Apollo crew, and was turned down -- Slayton had assigned Bean to clean up the rat's nest that was then the Apollo Applications Project, or AAP (which later became SkyLab).  Pete gave in and took his second choice for his LMP, C.C. Williams -- it was only after C.C. was killed in a T-38 crash that Slayton gave in and let Conrad have Bean as his LMP.

However, Bean's first assignment was as backup CDR on Gemini XI (which turned into the Gemini X backup CDR job when Bassett and See were killed, Stafford-Cernan moved up to prime on Gemini IX, and all of the backup crews shifted up one flight).  And his only other assignment was as CDR of the SkyLab 3 crew.  When asked whether he had deliberately held back Bean early on, Slayton pointed out that two of his three assignments were as a CDR, that he would have been quite comfortable flying Bean as the CDR of Gemini X had the need arisen, and that he trusted Bean to untangle the mess that AAP was in -- so, in fact, Slayton thought highly of him.  Highly enough that he had Bean working on special projects which kept him off the flight rotation, but not because he was one of the weaker guys.

As for Lovell and Young, that's a hard one.  John Young was very highly regarded, by Slayton as well as the rest of NASA.  Lovell was perhaps slightly less highly regarded -- he was not originally scheduled for a Gemini prime CDR slot, he only got one (moving up from the dead-end job of backing up Gemini X to the Gemini-XII-bound position of being the new Gemini IX backup CDR) because of the deaths of Bassett and See -- and Deke's original plan would have placed Collins in an Apollo CDR slot well before Lovell.  Even though Collins was of the third astronaut class, and Lovell was of the second class.

One thing to note -- the way Deke put the crews together, the fourth and fifth prime crews were designed to be made up entirely of Gemini veterans.  No rookie astronauts on either of those crews.  I think it's possible that Young and Lovell were placed as they were because Deke realized that the first landing attempt would be happening somewhere around there, and wanted to put his most experienced crews on those flights.  And in both cases, he put former Gemini CDRs in as CMPs -- creating the strongest crews he could manage.  If that meant he needed to bruise an ego here and there and put a former CDR into a CMP slot on what he saw as the most challenging of the upcoming missions, then so be it.

By the way, in the Neil Armstrong biography, "First Man," it comes out that Deke offered Armstrong to replace Aldrin with Lovell, since Aldrin had some history of being difficult to work with.  Neil turned Deke down on that one, because, first, he never had any problems working with Aldrin on the Apollo 8 backup crew, and second, that would have left him with two CSM specialists -- Collins and Lovell -- and no good way to decide which of them ought to be "demoted" to LMP.  In the end, Armstrong was happy with having Collins as his CMP and Aldrin as his LMP, so Deke left the rotation relatively intact.  But, had Neil decided he wanted to work with Lovell more than he wanted to work with Aldrin, we could have seen either Lovell or Collins making the landing with him.

-Doug
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #33 on: 02/17/2006 04:00 am »
As an addendum, I think it's important to note that the Crew Systems Division of NASA MSC in the 1960s and early 1970s was no less political than any other division in a large organization.  There were a number of different "power groups" or cliques in the astronaut office, each with its own constituency within MSC and NASA HQ management.  Slayton and Shepard dominated the "prime" clique, but Tom Stafford came out as one of the major voices for some of the other astronauts.  As time went on, Stafford attained official management status, taking over the job of Chief Astronaut and Head of the Astronaut Office from Al Shepard while Shepard trained for and flew Apollo 14, for example.  Jim McDivitt sort of spoke for a smaller group, in a similar fashion.

So, when it came to crew assignments, Slayton took inputs not just from his old friend Shepard, but also from his immediate bosses -- Bob Gilruth, George Low and Chris Kraft.  And Stafford, McDivitt and various others had, at various times and in various degrees, the ears of Gilruth, Low and Kraft.  Slayton and Shepard put together the crew rotations, but they knew full well which assignments would play well with their bosses, and which wouldn't.

So, it's likely that, after a while, people like Stafford, Borman and McDivitt were simply considered "best among equals" and were always in line ahead of guys like Lovell, or even Young.  Just politics, and who impresses who, when, and why...

-Doug
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #34 on: 02/17/2006 08:07 am »
Thanks, Doug.

It makes one wonder if similar office politics still goes on today. I'm sure many of us have read Bryan Burrough's DRAGONFLY and received it with a mixture of belief and disbelief. It is interesting to speculate on the real reasons why some astronauts rose higher and flew more, receiving CDR slots, whereas others didn't. Names like Hammond, Bill Gregory, Wolf and Loria spring readily to mind.

Do you have any insights into any of them?

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #35 on: 02/17/2006 02:17 pm »
So,at the last,  the most realistic choice for last apollo missions (with Apollo 13 no landing) would have been: Apollo 18-Gordon (CDR),Brand (CMP),Schmitt (LMP).Apollo 19-Haise(CDR),Pogue (CMP),England (LMP).Apollo 20-Roosa (CDR),Lousma (CMP),Lind (LMP)? Another question,what if See and Bassett had lived? Bassett would have been CMP on Apollo-3 (The Borman's crew),and CDR for lunar landing mission,but See? If original Gemini-9 had been a success,See would have been CMP or LMP in an early landing mission?

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #36 on: 02/17/2006 02:44 pm »
Another question:who was,in yours opinion the more lucky astronaut for mission's assigment ? In my opinion John Young.Remember that the original crew for Gemini-3 was Shepard-Stafford.If Young had lost Gemini-3 all his carrer would have been  different.Another lucky guy was Al Bean,and Gene Cernan too.A very bad lucky guy was Deke.The original Mercury flights plan previewed three sub orbital missions with Redstone booster.Glenn would have had to fly in the last of these missions.Deke would have been the first American in orbit.At the last he lost this opportunity,and did not fly at all  ,until ASTP (and after he lost the Shuttle).

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #37 on: 02/17/2006 04:18 pm »
Personally, I don't think anyone who got the opportunity to go into space had 'bad' luck. Having said that, I think the following were lucky ones:

Jim Irwin - who suffered some pretty severe injuries prior to joining NASA, yet walked on the Moon.
Jack Schmitt - for overcoming all the odds and getting the very last LMP seat.
Al Shepard - for getting back into the rotation and getting a 'plum' assignment on Apollo 14.
Pete Conrad - for doing pretty much everything (long-duration, spacewalk, rendezvous, docking, Moonwalk, space station expedition) with pretty low profile.

Bad luck:

Gordon Cooper - for flying two rather bland missions, then losing his chance to command Apollo 13.
Jim Lovell and Fred Haise - for missing out on the Moon landing.
Dick Gordon and Joe Engle - for losing Apollo 17 to Cernan's crew.
Bob Crippen - for losing his only chance of launching from Vandenberg (both MOL and STS-62A were cancelled).



Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #38 on: 02/17/2006 11:44 pm »
I agree about Joe Engle's bad luck. Getting bumped from a moon mission was a terrible blow. But he did command two shuttle missions afterward.

As for Cooper's Mercury mission, just about everything that could go wrong on that capsule did, from the electrics going out to his suit overheating. Without the autopilot functioning, he manually flew the reentry and landed closer to the recovery carrier than any of the others. His skills saved the mission and proved you had to have a pilot in the loop. It was a great segue to Gemini.

And while Gemini 5 wasn't a barn-burner for Conrad, his next three missions were. I talked with Al Bean a couple of years after Conrad's passing, and it was obvious that "low profile" was not a part of Conrad's makeup.

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #39 on: 02/18/2006 12:47 am »
Yeah, Charlie Bassett was considered one of the top three guys in his class.  Dave Scott was probably the number one guy in his class, followed by Mike Collins, Bassett and Dick Gordon.

Still, all in all, I think the second class of astronauts was likely the finest NASA fielded.  Some really fine people in that class.

What I often wonder about  is how the astronaut office would have developed had Deke never been grounded.  Slayton defined the crew rotation system and was the primary decision-maker when it came to who flew on what mission.  If he had never been grounded, his bosses would never have offered him the position that let him make his enormous mark on American manned space flight.  Crew selection would have proceeded *very* differently, and there's no way to even start to speculate on how it would have gone.

Still, I'm positive that Deke contributed far more to the lunar landing effort in the position h held than he ever could have as just another active astronaut.  That said, I was very, very glad when he was able to finally get his turn on a flight.  He deserved it -- I just wish he had been declared flightworthy early enough to have gotten a seat on one of the lunar landing flights.

-Doug
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline GirlygirlShuttlefan

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #40 on: 02/18/2006 12:59 am »
Who was the astronaut that missed out on the Apollo 13 mission and ended up being a hero by finding a way to get them back with the lack of power via the mock up on Earth? He was the one that slept in and took his phone off the hook because he was so down about it.

Offline Tony T. Harris

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #41 on: 02/18/2006 01:03 am »
Quote
GirlygirlShuttlefan - 17/2/2006  7:59 PM

Who was the astronaut that missed out on the Apollo 13 mission and ended up being a hero by finding a way to get them back with the lack of power via the mock up on Earth? He was the one that slept in and took his phone off the hook because he was so down about it.

Ken Mattingly. And that was made up by Hollywood for the film. He was not sulking at home with the phone off the hook. Apollo 13 the film was very sweethearted up.
Former Saturn V propulsion systems lead engineer.

Offline Shuttle Man

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • KSC
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #42 on: 02/18/2006 01:04 am »
Quote
GirlygirlShuttlefan - 17/2/2006  7:59 PM

Who was the astronaut that missed out on the Apollo 13 mission and ended up being a hero by finding a way to get them back with the lack of power via the mock up on Earth? He was the one that slept in and took his phone off the hook because he was so down about it.

That was Ken Mattingly, but he was NOT as they portrayed him. He was pulled from the mission with just two days notice, but he was still an utter pro. A great man.
Ex-Apollo, waiting for NASA to finish what we started.

Offline GirlygirlShuttlefan

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #43 on: 02/18/2006 01:10 am »
And that's my answer from two Apollo guys in the same of one minute!  :o  How cool is that. Thanks.

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #44 on: 02/18/2006 01:12 am »
And about Eliott See?

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #45 on: 02/18/2006 01:27 am »
Elliott See was considered by some of his peers as one of the weaker pilots in the second group -- or in the entire astronaut corps, for that matter.  Someone (I think it may have been Deke) described him as a hesitant pilot, "little-old-ladyish" was the term I recall.  And the pilot error that took See's life (as well as Bassett's) was ultimately defined as waiting too long to abort a landing in poor visibility -- in other words, hesitancy.

See was originally assigned as backup PLT for Gemini V, with Neil Armstrong as his CDR.  When it came time to name the Gemini VIII crew, though, Deke replaced See with Dave Scott.  His reasoning was that Gemini VIII featured a very strenuous EVA, and Deke felt that See wasn't in as good a physical condition as many of the other astronauts.  He seriously felt that See wasn't in good enough shape to perform a strenuous EVA.  So, See was given his own command, Gemini IX, with Charlie Bassett on hand to perform the EVA tasks.  But, even with this seemingly good explanation for the crew switch, Deke seems to have had doubts about See's overall abilities, especially his piloting abilities.  (For example, while he said he had a very definite set of Apollo seats in mind for Charlie Bassett, See would likely have been a crewmember on one of the early Apollo flights and then, like Cunningham and Eisele, probably not have been considered for later flights.)

In retrospect, Slayton wondered whether he perhaps ought to have simply pulled See from the rotation entirely.  He speaks in his biography of perhaps letting his liking of See get in the way of his professional judgment.  He wanted Elliott to get a flight, and so put him in a position where his less-than-stellar piloting skills could get him into trouble.  And Deke felt somewhat responsible for that.

-Doug
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #46 on: 02/18/2006 01:40 am »
Doug,

Even if See was one of the weaker pilots in Group 2, why was he ever given the CDR slot on Gemini 9? Less than half of that group flew their first missions as CDR - McDivitt, Borman and Armstrong - so surely if See was a weak pilot, he'd have been given a PLT seat and then quietly eased aside and out of the astronaut corps. In view of the earlier comments on this thread about astronauts whom Slayton felt were 'CDR material', but didn't get commands - Young, Lovell, White - I cannot understand why Slayton would have given one to the decidedly-average See.

Further, I forget the name of the book, but it may have been Slayton and Shepard's MOONSHOT, in which the early crew selections (before Slayton became head of flight operations) were decided in favour of each of the armed forces. Hence Shepard (Navy), Grissom (Air Force) and Glenn (Marines) were the first three to go up. Other than that, I would guess that a non-Slayton Astronaut Office management would have HAD to run some kind of prime/backup/support crew rotation system to keep up morale.

One wonders if they'd have still stuck with Armstrong (or perhaps even See) as the first man on the Moon, due to their civilian status.

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #47 on: 02/18/2006 02:06 pm »
So for pure piloting skills, with engineering smarts, etc., thrown in, we're talking who as top dogs?

The Original 7:
Shepard
Schirra
Slayton

The New 9:
Conrad
Stafford
McDivitt
Borman
Young
Armstrong (?)

The Next 19:
?

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #48 on: 02/18/2006 05:29 pm »
Quote
Tony T. Harris - 18/2/2006  2:03 AM



Ken Mattingly. And that was made up by Hollywood for the film. He was not sulking at home with the phone off the hook. Apollo 13 the film was very sweethearted up.

I didn't know that. I'd of thought Mattingly would have complained about that?
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #49 on: 02/19/2006 05:05 pm »
Ben, as near as I can tell, that same question you posed in re See was something Deke also asked himself.  But Deke wanted See to get his Gemini flight, and so he overlooked some basic factors that he thought later he shouldn't have overlooked.  (This is with all due respect to See and his family -- and recall that Slayton really soft-pedaled his views on See in his biography, so we ought not denigrate him here.  He must have had some basic competence, or he never would have made it through the selection process.  All we have to go on are the hints Slayton gave in his book, and I've drawn about as much out of that as you can, I think.)

I really think that the most outrageous treatment an astronaut ever received was what happened to Gordo Cooper.  I grant you, Gordo rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, with what was called a really obnoxious strap-it-on-and-go attitude; he didn't want to spend his time and energy on extensive preparations, he just wanted to cluimb in the cockpit and take off.  But even so, after putting in very strong performances in both MA-9 and GT-V, Slayton began to insist that he could no longer "sell" Cooper as a prime crewmember to his bosses.  So Cooper ended up with only two further crew assignments -- backup CDR of one of the late Gemini flights (a position that would never rotate up to a prime crew, since there weren't enough remaining Gemini flights for that to happen), and backup CDR for Apollo 10.  He was indeed offered the backup CDR job on what was then Apollo 13, when Shepard took over as the prime CDR of that crew, but was told he probably wouldn't be allowed to rotate to the prime CDR of Apollo 16, so he told Slayton and Shepard to shove it.

If Cooper had put in poor performances on either of his flights, I could see it -- but he put in outstanding performances, especially on MA-9.

Just goes to show you that competence and piloting ability weren't the only standards by which Slayton and company judged people for crew assignments.

-Doug
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline Ad Astra

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #50 on: 02/19/2006 08:13 pm »
Quote
dvandorn - 19/2/2006  12:05 PM
 He was indeed offered the backup CDR job on what was then Apollo 13, when Shepard took over as the prime CDR of that crew, but was told he probably wouldn't be allowed to rotate to the prime CDR of Apollo 16, so he told Slayton and Shepard to shove it.

-Doug

Fascinating information. Thanks for sharing.

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #51 on: 02/20/2006 12:23 pm »
Thanks, Doug.

I'm also aware that Donn Eisele and Walt Cunningham from Apollo 7 had shadows cast over their careers after Wally Schirra's outburst during their mission, but that Cunningham was told that if he kept his nose clean he could find redemption. I think both Cunningham and Schweickart also did a lot of work towards Skylab, but never flew it. Why?

What was Slayton's attitude to these three men, both before and after their Apollo flights? Was it solely on the basis of their performance in their missions that prevented them from flying again or, in Eisele's case, perhaps his divorce?

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #52 on: 02/20/2006 01:49 pm »
Quote
Ben E - 20/2/2006  7:23 AM

Thanks, Doug.

 I think both Cunningham and Schweickart also did a lot of work towards Skylab, but never flew it. Why?

 
Yes,why? for  Schweickart Space sickness" are not a excuse. Rusty  was backcrew CDR of SK-2,so he was fully qualified to fly.

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #53 on: 02/20/2006 03:30 pm »
Without questioning the competence of the Skylab-4 crew, it seems unusual that three rookies should fly when, in my mind, Cunningham or Schweickart were far more qualified candidates to command. Perhaps it's down to office politics. In Andy Chaikin's book, I think Cunningham and Schweickart were regarded, like Anders and Bean, as test engineers - 'scientists' even - rather than potential CDR material. Yet Bean flew as CDR on Skylab-3.

A real minefield.

Offline Jamie Young

  • This custom rank is currently being decided on
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Denver
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 151
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #54 on: 02/20/2006 04:38 pm »
Can I ask. There seems to be a lot of controvosy about some of the crew selections during the Apollo and surrounding times.

Has this not been seen with the Shuttle as I've never heard of such things. I was born after the last Apollo mission though.

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #55 on: 02/20/2006 06:52 pm »
Quote
Ben E - 20/2/2006  10:30 AM

Without questioning the competence of the Skylab-4 crew, it seems unusual that three rookies should fly when, in my mind, Cunningham or Schweickart were far more qualified candidates to command. Perhaps it's down to office politics. In Andy Chaikin's book, I think Cunningham and Schweickart were regarded, like Anders and Bean, as test engineers - 'scientists' even - rather than potential CDR material. Yet Bean flew as CDR on Skylab-3.

A real minefield.
Yes,true.With Deke's metod of assignment,backcrew of SK-2 would have had first crew on SK-4.Sk-2 backcrew was not a "dead-end" assignment like Gemini-12 or Apollo-17.Carr and Pogue would not have had occasion to fly untill Space Shuttle? Yes,but for poor Bruce Mccandless (same class of astronauts of Carr and Pogue) was not the same thing?Cunningham and Schweickart  worked on Skylab from 1969,jump over they was dirty.And..Rusty's crew  would not have go to strike like Carr's Crew.Sure not Walt,after the Apollo-7 lesson.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #56 on: 02/20/2006 07:53 pm »
"SK"???? Do you mean "SL" for Skylab?

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #57 on: 02/20/2006 08:38 pm »
yes. :(

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #58 on: 02/20/2006 08:40 pm »

Without questioning the competence of the Skylab-4 crew, it seems unusual that three rookies should fly when, in my mind, Cunningham or Schweickart were far more qualified candidates to command. Perhaps it's down to office politics. In Andy Chaikin's book, I think Cunningham and Schweickart were regarded, like Anders and Bean, as test engineers - 'scientists' even - rather than potential CDR material. Yet Bean flew as CDR on Skylab-3.

A real minefield.
Yes,true.With Deke's metod of assignment,backcrew of SL-2 would have had first crew on SL-4.SL-2 backcrew was not a "dead-end" assignment like Gemini-12 or Apollo-17.Carr and Pogue would not have had occasion to fly untill Space Shuttle? Yes,but for poor Bruce Mccandless (same class of astronauts of Carr and Pogue) was not the same thing?Cunningham and Schweickart worked on Skylab from 1969,jump over they was dirty.And..Rusty's crew would not have go to strike like Carr's Crew.Sure not Walt,after the Apollo-7 lesson.


Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #59 on: 02/20/2006 08:57 pm »
Cunningham worked very hard after Apollo 7 on the Skylab program and was responsible for much of its success. There were X number of astronauts for a finite number of missions through Skylab, and though I don't presume to know Slayton's mind, maybe he tried to have as many of them fly as he could, so guys like Cunningham missed out on a second chance, despite all his selfless efforts for the program. Don't know why Bean got command of Skylab 3, but he acquitted himself quite well on Apollo 12. Interesting that he followed his old commander Conrad into orbit, so maybe Pete put in a good word. Others, like McCandless and Lind, had to wait for the shuttle.

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #60 on: 02/21/2006 12:43 pm »
Recalling an earlier discussion on this thread, there was a skip-three-flights rotation system going during Apollo - hence Gordon, for example, flew Apollo 12 as prime CMP, backed-up Apollo 15 as CDR and would have flown Apollo 18 as prime CDR.

Why did this change to a skip-two-flights rotation for Skylab?

Was it anything to do with the fact that Skylab was a 'new' project, and most of the other astronauts were assigned either to Apollo or Shuttle, hence a shortage of candidates for seats? Or is there another reason?

Further, although off-topic but still in the realms of crew selections, has the rationale for selecting Shuttle crews changed significantly compared to Slayton's day? Yes, there are no backup crews anymore (except for ISS), and science missions (eg Spacelab) needed PhDs with relevance to the mission objectives, but in terms of the more 'generic' crew members - CDR, PLT, MS2 - is there any kind of rotation going?

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #61 on: 02/23/2006 05:01 am »
Why the difference in backup crew assignments for Skylab?

I'm pretty sure it was because Skylab was essentially different from the previous Gemini and Apollo missions.  In the former, each mission was different, had different goals and experiments, and used slightly different versions of the hardware.  In Skylab, the first manned mission was somewhat unique in that it involved the deployment and validation of most of the Workshop systems, but the second and third missions were nearly identical in their goals and experiments.

So, if you're Deke Slayton, why do you need to involve two backup crews for the second and third manned missions, when a single backup crew can train for all of the activities scheduled on both flights?  So, you have Schweickart, McCandless and Musgrave back up the first manned flight, and train for the unique functions of the first occupation of the Workshop.  Then you have Brand, Lind and Lenoir back up the second and third manned missions, confident that the odds of needing to use the backup crew on two successive missions is remote to virtually nonexistent.

The backup crews on Skylab did, however, have an operational and training responsibility that past and future backup crews did not -- they served as the *prime* crews for any rescue attempts.  While no rescue attempt was ever defined for the first manned Skylab flight (since no problem or emergency occurred that would have called for a rescue flight), there *was* a perceived need for a rescue mission during the second manned mission, when the CSM's RCS system developed multiple tank and piping leaks shortly after achieving orbit.  The prime crew for the rescue mission, which was told to stand down after workarounds were developed for the SL-3 CSM, was Brand and Lind.  I'm pretty certain that Schweickart and McCandless would have flown any rescue attempt during SL-2, and that Brand and Lind would have flown any rescue attempts during SL-3 or SL-4.

So, while the backup crew duties on Skylab were inherently dead-end jobs, they were, in a sense, also prime crew slots (for the CDR and PLT, anyway) for a rescue mission -- had such a mission been needed.

I would also imagine that two SL backup crews were all that were needed to maintain a backup crew capability for the rescue missions, as well.  For example, had you needed to invoke a backup crew or single crewman for an SL-2 rescue flight, Brand could replace Schweickart and Lind could replace McCandless.  The same could work vice-versa -- even though Schweickart and McCandless were officially "off" crew status after the flight of SL-2, they would be pressed into service as backups for Brand and Lind, had the need arisen, on any rescue flight attempt during SL-3 or SL-4.

So, because at the time of the Skylab crew assignments there were no plans for further manned missions until the Shuttle began flying (which they thought would happen in the late '70s), backup crew assignments on Skylab were by their very nature dead-end assignments.  Deke's reasoning, I'm sure, was, why stick more people than was necessary with dead-end backup crew assignments?  Heck, at the end of Apollo, Deke re-used experienced guys all over the place on his Apollo backup crews, freeing the rest of the astronauts to start concentrating on Skylab and Shuttle crew duties.  Poor Stu Roosa ended up serving as backup CMP on both Apollos 16 and 17; Fred Haise and Ed Mitchell backed up Apollo 16's LM crew, while Young and Duke barely needed much in the way of an additional training cycle to back up the Apollo 17 LM crew.

Interestingly, when ASTP came to need a crew assignment, Deke named himself as CDR and gave the other two seats to Vance Brand and Jack Swigert.  Now, Swigert wasn't involved in any of the Skylab flight crew ops, and was obliged to resign NASA when he became involved in the stamp scandal following Apollo 15.  But this is the Slayton decision I have the hardest time understanding -- why use Swigert when you had both Lind and McCandless ready and waiting following their Skylab backup stints?  (Of course, when NASA HQ turned down Deke's crew recommendation, the only one they just flatly turned down, he had to bring Tom Stafford in as CDR and demote himself to Docking Module Pilot just to keep himself on the prime crew.  That took care of what to do with Swigert once he had to leave NASA... but I still wonder why Deke chose Swigert for that flight in the first place.)

-Doug
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #62 on: 02/23/2006 01:36 pm »
Poor Bruce McCandless.Deke was bad with he. :(

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 9
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #63 on: 02/23/2006 01:42 pm »
Yes, he did wait a long time, but McCandless got a couple of plum assignments later. First MMU test flight and the Hubble deployment. My guess is that, had he not resigned, he may have been a candidate for the first Hubble servicing mission, too.

Offline carmelo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #64 on: 02/23/2006 05:44 pm »
Quote
Ben E - 23/2/2006  8:42 AM

Yes, he did wait a long time
17 years!!!!!!!

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #65 on: 02/25/2006 02:11 am »
As Slayton said, any crew or individual astronaut could handle any mission. Maybe. But there are examples of the Right Stuff in the extreme throughout the space program. Some that come to mind are:

1. Schirra's split-second decision not to pull the abort handle during the non-launch of Gemini 6.
2. Armstong wrestling Gemini 8 under control.
3. Stafford regaining control of the Apollo 10 lunar module during staging in lunar orbit.
4. Armstong, again, finally finding Eagle a safe place to land.

Any others?

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #66 on: 02/25/2006 03:00 am »
Quote
rsp1202 - 24/2/2006  9:11 PM

As Slayton said, any crew or individual astronaut could handle any mission. Maybe. But there are examples of the Right Stuff in the extreme throughout the space program. Some that come to mind are:

1. Schirra's split-second decision not to pull the abort handle during the non-launch of Gemini 6.
2. Armstong wrestling Gemini 8 under control.
3. Stafford regaining control of the Apollo 10 lunar module during staging in lunar orbit.
4. Armstong, again, finally finding Eagle a safe place to land.

Any others?

Al Shepard, descending in his LM, passing 20,000 feet, passing 18,000 feet, continuing to sink, with *no* landing radar -- deciding that he was going to go ahead and try to land, whether the damned radar came in or not!  (That one has at least as much "pucker factor" as most of those you mentioned... *smile*...)

-Doug
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline Stardust9906

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1279
  • Durham, UK
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 1369
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #67 on: 02/25/2006 12:13 pm »
Quote
rsp1202 - 25/2/2006  3:11 AM

As Slayton said, any crew or individual astronaut could handle any mission. Maybe. But there are examples of the Right Stuff in the extreme throughout the space program. Some that come to mind are:

1. Schirra's split-second decision not to pull the abort handle during the non-launch of Gemini 6.
2. Armstong wrestling Gemini 8 under control.
3. Stafford regaining control of the Apollo 10 lunar module during staging in lunar orbit.
4. Armstong, again, finally finding Eagle a safe place to land.

Any others?

John Young and Bob Crippen for their flight on STS-1.  Consider the fact that they were flying an untried vehicle that had never even flown an unmanned test flight which up until then all new vehicles had.  If that isn't the right stuff I don't know what is.

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo minus the Fire
« Reply #68 on: 02/25/2006 01:17 pm »
Agree about Shepard, though I prefer his "Why don't you fix your problems and light this candle!" remark on Mercury.
Agree about Young and Crippen.
I'd also nominate for honorable mention the fix-it crew of Skylab 2: Conrad, Weitz, and Kerwin.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0