46
$\begingroup$

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended to the moon in the Lunar Module, Michael Collins stayed up in lunar orbit in the Command Module.

Why did they need someone to stay behind?

At this point, rendezvous and docking with an unmanned spacecraft in orbit had already been done. Was there something else they needed someone up there for?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Relay of messages back to mission control, only two guys could fit in the LM, etc. $\endgroup$ – Undo Aug 16 '13 at 17:29
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "relay of messages"? Did Collins have to do something so mission control could communicate with the guys on the surface? $\endgroup$ – Joe Aug 16 '13 at 17:31
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Well, you would want someone to able to kick the computer if it started not working. $\endgroup$ – Undo Aug 16 '13 at 17:32
  • $\begingroup$ As a reserve? If either Armstrong or Aldrin fell ill etc, Collins could take their place. $\endgroup$ – Gnubie Aug 16 '13 at 19:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Gnubie no, the CMP didn't have the appropriate training to substitute for CDR or LMP. $\endgroup$ – pericynthion Sep 24 '14 at 6:00
46
$\begingroup$

This is an outcome of several requirements and constraints:

  • The crew size was fixed at three astronauts very early (on 28-29 July 1960, in a large planning conference).

    [Space Task Group's] "Richard S. Johnston presented three demands: "shirt-sleeve" environment, three-man crew, and radiation protection. He discussed the need of the crews for a safe environment and for atmospheric control." (source)

  • The mission design switched to Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous (thanks to work by John Houbolt), and the Lunar Excursion Module could have the mass budget only for two astronauts.

    "By the end of 1961, the newly named Manned Spacecraft Center had virtually swung over to the lunar-orbit rendezvous idea. Gilruth, Faget, and the other Apollo planners conceded that this approach had drawbacks: a successful rendezvous with the mother craft after the bug left the lunar surface was an absolute necessity, and only two of the three crew members would be able to land on the moon." (source)

  • The docking argument is not really valid since CSM's Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) could receive commands directly from Mission Control and hence, could maintain fixed attitude required for docking without any intervention from the lunar module crew. (I read it somewhere in the handbooks - see http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/links.html, see also letters from Grumman to ASPO cited here)

  • However, the overall doctrine during the Apollo program hinged on using crew members as backup for computers. If computers or communications failed, command module pilot would be instrumental in mission success. (A sextant, a slide rule, pencil and paper were provided for manual navigation).

    "Shea and his staff reviewed these studies and presented the results to the rest of the manned space flight organization early in October [1962]. The contractors agreed that either two-man direct flight or earth-orbit rendezvous was feasible but both were less attractive than lunar rendezvous because the probability for mission success was lower, the first landing would be later, and the developmental complexity would be greater. The vote was still for three-man, lunar-orbit rendezvous." (source)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So, more or less, the answer is: they decided to send 3 people. Then designed the equipment. The equipment they designed only fit 2 people, but by then the decision had been made. Plus a little bit of "Hey since he won't fit in the LEM, he can at least be a backup for the PC"? Did I understand that right? Makes sense when you think about it. $\endgroup$ – Shane Sep 25 '15 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Shane They probably could have designed the LM to fit three people, but it would have needed to be considerably larger (and consequently heavier) to do so. All the human consumables would scale linearly with the number of crewmembers, whereas electronics consumables (cooling water, batteries, etc.) wouldn't necessarily do so. Surface area and thus skin materials weight would scale, to a first order approximation, to second or third order exponentially with pressure vessel volume. They ended up pushing the limits of the Saturn V; any additional craft mass would likely have meant less payload. $\endgroup$ – a CVn May 29 '16 at 15:17
9
$\begingroup$

If the Lander had a problem, the CSM needed to be able to accommodate unusual docking circumstances. Sure, they had done unmanned docking before, but the computer on the CSM was not exactly great by today's standards.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So his role was just for handling docking? (Not to sound like I'm minimizing it -- docking with the CSM was critical.) $\endgroup$ – Joe Aug 16 '13 at 17:32
  • $\begingroup$ Given Deer Hunter's answer it would be helpful if you provided sources for your claim. In particular, it sounds like docking was not the reason. (Also, and this is more general advice, the best answers are likely to go into more detail then this answer does. As it is, the post has the shape of a comment rather than an answer.) $\endgroup$ – Jon Ericson Aug 16 '13 at 21:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JonEricson The statement "crew members as backup for computers" in Deer Hunter's answer is an understatement. Even with commands sent by ground control, those space crafts were nowhere near of being fully controllable by a computer. Back then, docking was still rather new. Docking in lunar orbit was considered to be insane. Docking was not the exclusive reason. But ensuring successful docking manoeuvres was a key issue. Documents of the 1960s referred to astronauts as redundant components - a number of incidents in space requiring astronauts to solve them told us otherwise. $\endgroup$ – s-m-e Aug 17 '13 at 23:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @ernestopheles: The point of my comment wasn't to dispute the accuracy of the answer, but to point out that this answer needs more support (such as those documents you mentioned). Either answer seems possible, but in light of the other answer this post seems bareboned. $\endgroup$ – Jon Ericson Aug 18 '13 at 0:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Maybe for human redundancy? OK, so Armstrong and Aldrin are designated as the LEM crew from 'way back in the crew selection process, but what if one of them develops a really bad cold while enroute to the Moon? Collins swaps roles with whoever got sick and lands on the Moon. I wonder if there was similar logic to putting two crew in the LEM - contingency against one becoming incapacitated while on the Moon (for whatever reason) to the point that he could no longer perform the tasks required for successful ascent, rendezvous, and docking. $\endgroup$ – Anthony X Jun 14 '14 at 3:12
8
$\begingroup$

In addition to the above answers, the third crewman on the CSM performed visual checks of the LM after separation before descent, photography duties, regular purging of fuel cells, reconfiguring and relaying communications from the LM to mission control and platform alignments. Some of these may be possible from the ground.

I guess it was also a big comfort to have a guy on board just in case of some failure which would result in the loss of attitude or communication (and control) of the CSM. It's not just for computer backup. For example, a mechanical failure like some gas leak could push the CSM off attitude and through gimbal lock. That might be easily correctable by a guy on board, yet pose major problems to fix from the ground if communication was lost, and could prevent the LM from docking and kill everyone.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Just nitpicking, but "above" has no real meaning in an environment that orders answers by votes and not by time... Except, maybe, if you are aiming for giving the least voted-for answer... ;) $\endgroup$ – Alexander Kosubek Feb 23 '18 at 8:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Maybe I recognise that the voting results are too correlated to how quickly someone posts an answer. $\endgroup$ – Innovine Feb 24 '18 at 6:09

protected by TildalWave May 2 '15 at 12:58

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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