7
$\begingroup$

The President of the United States famously had a speech prepared for the eventuality of the Apollo 11 crew getting stuck on the moon and unable to be rescued.

What plans have been made for how a similar situation be handled by staff on the ground? Doesn't have to be Apollo related, any non-recoverable situation is okay, and any space agency, not just NASA. For example, the Soviets were known to cover up failures of unmanned satellites quite routinely, but it would be more difficult with a manned craft where the crew had a radio transmitter.

Note: This is not a duplicate of this question. "Ground staff" refers to personnel on the ground, not on the vehicle/space station in question. "Crew" refers to people on the vehicle/space station. These are two separate groups.

Furthermore, when I did ask about both in one question, it was put on hold as "too broad".

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
9
$\begingroup$

For the subset of problems where

  1. Rescue is impossible
  2. The crew is unaware of the situation

Senior members of NASA management expressed a preference to 'let them die happy' in the case of the STS-107 failure.

Jon Harpold was the Director of Mission Operations, my supreme boss as a Flight Director. He had spent his early career in shuttle entry analysis. He knew more about shuttle entry than anybody; the guidance, the navigation, the flight control, the thermal environments and how to control them. After one of the MMTs when possible damage to the orbiter was discussed, he gave me his opinion: “You know, there is nothing we can do about damage to the TPS. If it has been damaged it’s probably better not to know. I think the crew would rather not know. Don’t you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry than to stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be done, until the air ran out?”

Wayne Hale, Working on the Wrong Problem

Note: As a former low-level engineer in Mission Operations, I strongly disagree with this philosophy.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ How could subsequent crews trust ground control after this "happy" precedent? $\endgroup$
    – Diego Sánchez
    Commented Aug 22, 2019 at 4:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As far as the crew knowing, it is a question of dying a victim vs. dying a hero. I'll take hero any day... $\endgroup$
    – Digger
    Commented Aug 22, 2019 at 19:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How would plunging to an inevitable death make you a hero? $\endgroup$
    – Diego Sánchez
    Commented Aug 23, 2019 at 7:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DiegoSánchez it's more the fact that you knew you could die, but did anyway that makes them a hero; they're heroes from the start. $\endgroup$
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    Commented Aug 23, 2019 at 18:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DiegoSánchez Flight crew need to be part of the problem-solving team. Necessity being the mother of invention, I can't imagine a more motivated set of individuals than those whose lives are imperiled...if nothing else, the STS-107 crew could have weighed in on an entry path that would not imperil innocent civilians (remember, if 107 had not waved off for an orbit, their path would have taken them directly over metropolitan Houston). $\endgroup$
    – Digger
    Commented Sep 21, 2019 at 16:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.