Apollo 15’s Al Worden and mission planner Farouk El Baz visit MIT AeroAstro, April 2017

Apollo 15’s Al Worden and mission planner Farouk El Baz visit MIT AeroAstro, April 2017

OK so, we’re going to get
started, sorry for the delay. So it’s my great honor to have
two distinguished guests here, and this is the first
time they’ve been together in almost 25 years. I think 1993, is that right? So we’re fortunate to have Al
Worden, the Apollo 15 command module pilot, who conducted
geology from lunar orbit in July and August of 1971, and
the geologist who trained him, Farouk El-Baz. And I thought I’d just do some
brief introductions, starting with Farouk. He was actually here at
MIT, training in geology. Which I thought I knew
a lot about Apollo and hadn’t realized,
in 1963 ’64 and ’65, he was working on
his PhD at MIT. which he received, I think,
just a year or two later. And upon graduation from the
Missouri School of Mines, he joined Bellcomm,
the group that was set up by Bell Laboratories
to basically be the systems integrator and advisor to NASA
headquarters during Apollo, and then served to train all of
the Apollo crews, Including– CMPs. And right at that
same time, Al Worden was at the University
of Michigan getting his graduate degree. He grew up in
Michigan on a farm. He went to West Point,
graduated in 1955, served in the US Air
Force upon graduation. Learned to fly airplanes,
became a test pilot, served over in the UK on a tour of
duty at Farnborough, where I last saw you,
and then went to Edwards, to the US Air Force research
test pilot school where you were an instructor. So you went to Michigan as
well for a graduate degree– Heaven forbid, yeah. MIT just celebrated the
centennial of the AeroAstro department, at the same
time the centennial of the University of Michigan. Those are the two oldest
schools in the field of aeronautical engineering. So you were both in school
roughly at the same time. Farouk was here, you
were at Michigan. So in the background here
we’ll show some of the images. This is you in front
of a t-38, I think, training for the mission. That’s at Edwards. And some of the
guys you were picked with for the group
of five, do you want to talk about that selection? Group five. I came back from the Empire Test
Pilots’ School in Farnborough, England at the request of a guy
by the name of Chuck Yeager. Now you may remember, those
of you who are old enough, Jeff will remember this. Chuck Yeager was
the guy who first broke the sound barrier in this
country, 1947, in the Bell X-1. He went faster than the
speed of sound, first time it had ever– well it was
not the first time it’d ever been done. Guys had done it
before in airplanes, but they did it
illegally, and they didn’t want to tell anybody
because they’d get in trouble. But he’s the first guy to
break the sound barrier in straight and level flight. He was commandant of the
Advanced Aerospace Research Pilot School at
Edwards, California. And about a month before my
graduation from Farnborough, he and the school
came over on a visit. And he came to me
and said, I want you to come back and
teach at the school. I was just absolutely shocked,
because I knew for a fact that he did not like
educated people. He was an eighth grade
graduate in West Virginia– and you know what
West Virginia’s like– and he became a pilot
in the Air Force, and he became an ace when
he was 18, in Europe. He became an ace because he–
and he would be very honest about this– he became an ace
because he had the best eyes there were in the sky. He could see airplanes miles
away where nobody else could, so he became an
ace when he was 18. He was a stick and rudder
man, and he did not like educated people. So anyway he came
over and asked me, because he wanted me to
teach a couple of courses, write and teach a
couple of courses. A course on relativity and
that kind of thing, you know. And I said, I can’t do
that because I’m already committed to going to a
test facility in England, where they were testing vertical
take off and lift airplanes. And that’s where the
Harrier came from, inside of that whole
program, and how the tilt rotor, and all that
kind of stuff comes out of it. And I thought, that would be a
fabulous, fabulous assignment, testing a vertical take
off and lift airplane. But one thing led to another,
and they got me diverted, and I went back to Edwards, and
that’s how I got in, anyway. Make a short story long. Bear with me. I speak a different
language than you people, because I went to the
University of Michigan. So here’s a great
picture of Al and Farouk together in the geology
training for Apollo 15. Farouk do you want to
comment on that one? Well the one thing
I would say about Al is the fact that he was
just the most absorbent of technical stuff
and geological things, because most of the
crews had absolutely no knowledge of the Earth,
or geology, or environment, or any of that. So Al would come in and
would absorb it all, and would communicate with
me or ask me questions about how did you know this,
and why do you say that, and what did you tell me
last time about such and such and why is this. So he really absorbed
the whole thing, and for that, he became the
best observer from orbit. He would look from
the spacecraft all the way to the
surface of the moon, and then he would pick up tiny
little objects and differences in color, differences
in texture, differences, and he would convey
them right away, knowing that we were
waiting for that. So I salute him. Well I do remember,
Farouk had me trained to look for evidences
of volcanic activity, and there are a number. If you look at the moon,
you’ll see lots of stuff that looks like it
could be volcanic. It could be lava
flows, it could be Schroter’s Valley, and
Aristarchus, and even where our landing site was,
Hadley Rille, which turns out to be a collapsed lava tube. It’s long distance,
there are lots of things. But back in those days, the
geologists that we trained with were still arguing about
whether the features on the moon were made by meteor impacts
or volcanic activity. Two different sides of
this whole thing, and they used to argue all night long
about which one was right. Well obviously the answer
is somewhere in between. So we looked for
volcanic activity, and as a matter of fact took
high resolution pictures of it. Farouk jumped on
it and everybody looked at it, and as a
result of that they actually changed the landing site
of Apollo 17 to go there. So there was some real
value in observational work, that we actually found
the volcanic activity. And we were talking about
that a little bit at lunch. You want to go a little
further on the choices for– On Apollo 15, yeah We had about
16 potential landing sites on the moon. I was secretary of the committee
that selected the landing sites, based on the fact
that they are safe enough, they are flat, all of that. And we’d been selecting
sites one by one for very specific missions,
and by the time Al flew we had only about three or four left. And one of the places
where I thought would be an
interesting place was on the southeast corner
of one of the large basins on the moon. Because we thought,
that has darker material and darker material may
mean younger volcanics, because it has not been
modified by later impacts. That’s why it is darker. That was the interpretation. So I included this, as well
as all kinds of other sites too, for Al’s observation. So Al knew exactly
what we meant, and he knew exactly
what we say that for, and he went on
looking from orbit. And he began to describe
these things that he saw and that one site, he kind of
emphasized the fact that it is fascinating, and he say, I
see a whole sea of dark cinder cones. These cinder cones remind
me of what I saw in Arizona, the cinder cones are
surrounded by dark halos, and he kept on talking
about that at the time. Fascinatingly, the Apollo
program director Rocco Petrone– God bless his soul– he
was sitting at the top of the MOCR– which is the
mission control center– and he walked all the
way down the steps, and he came to my location
in the center and he says, Farouk, your student may
have picked up a landing site for you. So it became an
interesting story there. We did not count on that
particular site right away, we had all kinds of
other sites to consider for each and every mission. And then when it came
Apollo 17, we definitely selected that particular
site where Al had picked up certain features that
would be interesting, may have some younger material. One of the only
geologist astronaut was one of the people on
the Apollo 17 mission, and the site was picked
up for Apollo 17. And the astronauts
on the surface started going there,
and Jack Schmitt– some of you may have
known his name– is a fellow geologist,
and he went over there and he talked about
the orange soil, and this orange soil
reminds him of fumaroles. So we thought that this,
ah, Al said something about the dark halo craters,
and now the geologist talking about fumarolic
activity, maybe that is very young
fumarolic activity, like what we have right now
in the American Southwest, with fumarolic
activities that actually would color the soil
with this orange color, as we have here on Earth. And we all began
to think this way, and we all went to
the press at the time, and talked about the
fact that Apollo 17 found very young material,
and this might mean we have to go
back to the moon, because that’s a different
conclusion than all other missions and
this and this and that. And it turned out that,
that geological observation was wrong. At the time of the mission, I
asked Ron Evans, the command module pilot on the
mission, and I told him, the guys on the ground saw
this and this and that, look from orbit and see whether
there’s any other location that has the same color. And he did look, and
he saw the color, and then at the other end
of that circle or basin he did see other impact craters
with the same hint of color as that one. So I knew then right
there that actually, that is not a very
specific place here, and maybe Jack Schmitt’s
interpretation might not be correct. But in the meantime,
the observation from Al was very critical to the
selection of the landing site, and the observation
also allowed us to think a little more about
the types of volcanic activities on the surface of the
moon– whether they’re old, whether they’re young. And the Apollo 17 mission
was a very fine mission to bring up some of these– the collected rocks
added a great deal to our understanding of the
lunar surface in general. Farouk was part
of the group that helped select our landing site. Our landing site was 27
degrees north of the equator, very far off the beaten track. All the flights
before us had gone within plus or minus 10
degrees of the equator, because we knew all the
gravitational constants. This one was 27 degrees north– yep, there’s our landing site,
and that’s called Hadley Rille. In the upper right hand
corner is Hadley Mountain. Now they’ve had to fly the lunar
module over Hadley Mountain– which is 15,000 feet high– down to Hadley Rille, but
the interesting thing is, Hadley Rille is probably
a collapsed lava tube. That’s what we think. Now a lava tube here
on earth is maybe 35 to 50 feet in diameter– molten lava coming down
the side of a hill, the top cools and solidifies and
then the molten lava flows out underneath it, and you
get a tunnel that goes up the side of the mountain. Here that would be 35-40,
maybe 45-50 feet something like that– this one’s 1,000 feet
across and 700 feet deep. Shows you the differences
in the mechanisms, the physical mechanisms, that
are different from on the earth here, than they are on the moon. And one other
thing I want to say is, in their inimitable wisdom
they picked us a lovely landing site. Palus Putredinis. You know what that means. Stinking swamp. They had us landing
in stinking swamp. Thanks. We didn’t name it this way. It was named before
we were born. So maybe picking up on
that, so Apollo 15 was the first of the J missions
that carried the lunar rover, carried greater supplies to
do three days on the surface, but also the trajectory
of the lunar orbit was changed from the
prior missions, where it had a 60 nautical
mile circular orbit. Before the landing sequence
began on Apollo 15, it was the first mission to
take the command module, docked to the lunar module,
down to 50,000 feet, and that was the night
before the mission. Right, we went into an orbit
that was 60 miles high, and before we went
to bed that night we adjusted the orbit to 60
miles behind the moon, and 50,000 feet over
the landing site, realizing that the mountain
was 15,000 feet high. So we went to bed that night. Now how you go to
bed in space is you put shutters up the windows
to block out the sunlight, and that becomes night. And so you just curl
up and go to sleep, and I got up the next morning
and I pulled the shade down. From the window in front of
me, looked out the front, and I’m looking up at
the top of Mount Hadley. And it freaked me out. So I called Houston. Houston, Houston, Apollo 15. Oh we’re so glad you called. Why are you glad, well
you’re getting a little close to the mountain. I said, I can see that. I mean you don’t have to
tell me, I can see it. Where are we? Well you’ve been dropping
a little bit in your orbit, because we did not know the
gravitational constant’s at 27 degrees inclination
to the lunar equator. All the prior missions
have been at– All the prior missions
have been in that band of plus or minus 10 degrees. So I say, how low are we? Well now we figured
this out, because– I have the right numbers in
my book, which John kindly pointed out to me, because
I would lie and tell you it was a lot worse than
what it really was. Anyway we’re down to 41,000
feet, plus or minus nine. 46. 46, was it? OK, 46,000, plus
or minus about 9. Now let me tell you, you’re
all STEM students, I assume. And I have to tell you that
any time anybody that’s being trained in science,
technology, engineering, and math gives you
a number with a plus or minus on the
end of it, you know they don’t know what they’re
talking about, right? So anyway we figured
about nine, so we’re down to like 37,000 feet
and the top of that mountain was 15,000 feet. We’re getting pretty damn close
to the top of that mountain. So it did not take
us but one orbit to get Dave and Jim in the
lunar module, off on their own. Now, should I tell
the rest of the– OK. So I get them in
the lunar module and off they go, they
go down and land. And I’m in the command
module by myself, and I am approaching
the apolune, 60 miles in the back, where
I’ve got to add some velocity to circularize the orbit. So I get on the back
side of the moon, and I did not think about
this, but we have three couches in the spacecraft. One on the left, and
the one on the left has as a pressure pad that
sits against the left wall, and there’s a shock absorber on
the right side of that couch. Then there’s a center couch, and
on the other side of the center couch is another shock absorber
attached to the right couch, which has that pressure pad. And so you adjust all
that string of material all the way across there, and
you can kind of get the couches from bouncing back
and forth because you put a little pressure
on the pressure pads. Well, the center couch was out. The shock absorber
is on a swivel. When I fired– Here’s a view of that. That’s in training, but– When I fired the
engine to circularize– and I forget how many feet
per second I had to add– instead of looking at
the instrument panel, I was suddenly looking
out the left window. Because that couch, when
I ignited the engine, that couch, because of
Newton, went like this. And now I’m looking
out the side window. You talk about freaked
out, I was really freaked, because I could not
reach a single control. So thank god the computer
worked, and it stopped at the right time and I was OK. I’ve never told anybody
that, only 45 years later do I even dare try to mention it. They can’t do
anything to me now. Speaking of the
computer, could you talk a little bit
about your training here at MIT when you came
to the instrumentation lab? Yeah. As you probably know, we had
a navigation system on board that involved a
sextant, much the same as the ancient mariners used. And we would take
a couple of stars, or we’d take the Earth’s
horizon and a star, or the moon’s
horizon and a star. Here’s the deal, if you
take a series of star pairs, the computer will then
figure out your attitude. It knows what direction
you’re pointed. Then you go back and you
do an Earth’s horizon-star, and you do that a dozen
times, and now your computer has got you figured
out where you are in the Earth-Moon system, OK. And we used an XYZ
system with the sun at the center and all
that, so it was all mathematically possible to do. However, and I
will say this too, I had to deal with mission
control coming back home. There’s always a
danger during a flight that you’re going
to have a failure. And it wasn’t so much a lunar
flight, because you’re only gone two weeks. But thinking ahead to say,
you know when we go to Mars, we’re going to be a year
and a half out there. There’s always a possibility
of a failure in the system somewhere. And one of those systems that
could fail will be the radios. How do you get a crew back home? Now, just to back
up one second, we had a computer that
was probably the first of the interactive
computers that were made that
really worked, done by Stark Draper and his boys. And it was a fantastic
computer, we had– At least one of them’s
sitting right there– [INTERPOSING VOICES] We had a total
memory that we could load into that computer of 75k. Is that the right number? I believe 7– 78k, OK, I won’t
quibble over three. Yeah, OK, OK. Well I’ve got more in this,
right, than I had back then. So we could not load all the
programs into the computer that we really would like
to have there, right. They had to actually take a
program out of the computer. Guess which program
they took out. It was a program
called Return to Earth. So anyway, I had to deal
with mission control. And I said, you
know what, they keep a state vector which is XYZ,
and velocity XYZ, and a time. And after a long
period of time they could really zero in on where
we were within certain feet, and in feet per second,
that kind of thing. I said, you know if we’re really
serious about losing a radio if we go to Mars, then
we’ve got to figure out how to get back home on board. We’ve got a sextant, we’ve got
a computer, let us do that. So I worked out this deal
with mission control, and I did all my own
navigation on the way home. And the deal was that
if I established a state vector on board with
my own navigation, and mission control
did theirs, cause they’re still tracking us,
they had their state vector. If those two differed by
a certain amount, then they would upload a new
state vector for me. But if I stayed
within the constraints of those requirements, then
they wouldn’t touch it. And we came all the way back
home under our own navigation, even through reentry. And I think we’re just
as accurate as mission control would have been. So that was kind of the– In other words, no radar
updates from the ground. We didn’t take any updates. To the state vector. We did our own, yep. So I guess the
point of that is– see I don’t know how
Star Trek navigates. But I suspect we could do a
pretty damn good job of it if we had to. At the very end, I’ll show you
a famous Star Trek picture, but do you want to
say a few other words, I have a lot of
training pictures I wanted to show of your
crew, the mission patches. There’s Farouk
training the crew. Yup, last minute,
last minute training– Let me make a point. Farouk and I are
training, he’s coming down to the Cape or
Houston or wherever, and we had not yet
named our spacecraft. We pretty much had zeroed
in on the lunar module as the Falcon, because all three
of us were in the Air Force, and so that was a natural thing. But we did not have a name
for the command module. Farouk came through what used to
be called Washington National, I believe. It’s now Reagan. And he happened to
stop by a bookstore– they’re all over the place
when you go into an airport these days– and he bought a book
on old explorers. And he brought that
along with him, and we’re looking
through that book and we find this page to Captain
Cook, who sailed to the South Pacific in 1779, I believe, in
a sailing ship called the HMS Endeavour– with the English spelling. That became the name
of our spacecraft, because we figured we were
the first scientific voyage to the moon. So that was an appropriate name. So anyway, just a
little side note. Were you involved in the
design of the mission patch? The patch– fun, fun thing. The other thing
that we could do, besides naming the
spacecraft, was we could design
our own crew patch. We had hundreds of
designs sent to us, mailed in, that
we had to look at. We didn’t like any of them. So we went to a friend
of a friend, who was an Italian dress designer. You probably wouldn’t know
who i was talking about. I mean if you were here
in the ’70s and ’80s– sorry ladies– guy’s
name was Emilio Pucci. Now Pucci was a very famous
designer back in the day, and he did all his work in
pastels and swirly pastels on silk, and he was– I mean his dresses were
eye popping, right. Well Emilio also went to
college in this country. He attended the University of
Georgia back in the early ’30s, and he got a degree in
agricultural engineering. I thought it was something
else until I really started doing some– but it
was agricultural engineering. So he goes back, he’s
going to be a farmer, didn’t like that so
he learned how to fly. And he flew through World
War Ii as a fighter pilot in the Italian Air Force,
and after the war– my bottom line in all of
this is after the war, he did what all Italian
fighter pilots wanted to do– he got into ladies’ clothes. And he did it very successfully,
but anyway, we got him. You don’t have to be a
designer, I mean just be a fighter pilot I guess. Anyway, he gave us a design. It was rectangular
with fluted corners, and it was all pastel colors,
blues and greens and purples and violets, and
that kind of thing. And we looked at it,
but what he gave us was the three stylized birds. And so we took those, we
put them over the moon, in front of the birds
is our landing site– that’s a depiction
of the landing site– and we made it circularly
red, white, and blue. Now the end of the
story is we’re also told we could not use Roman
numerals on our patch. That had been
outlawed, and I suspect the reason is, you take
135 shuttle flights, and if you’re doing
Roman numerals, those get pretty
long after a while. So they had outlawed that,
so we had to use numbers– we didn’t like that. So if you look very carefully
at the back of the birds, behind the tail, you’ll see
an interesting shadow pattern. Now truthfully, we had to
move some craters around, and we had to have the sun
shining from both directions, but we got what we wanted. So there’s an X and a V
behind the tail of the birds, and that was our
Roman numeral 15. There is some fun, you’ve got
to have some fun in the program, I got to tell you. Speaking of fun, you
had matching Corvettes. Well, yeah, we had– there was a big thing about
us all driving Corvettes back in the day. General Motors decided that they
would lease us a Corvette for– actually, it was supposed
to be for three months, and it turned out
to be six months. I think I ended up having
12 different Corvettes along the way, one
time or another. But we were the backup
crew on Apollo 12. And Apollo 12, they
were all Navy crews, and they had their
three Corvettes but they had them
painted black and gold. I thought that was the most out
outrageous, utterly ridiculous color scheme I’d
ever seen in my life. Just blah, right. So we got ours red,
white and blue. We were going to
do them one better. A guy by the name
of Ralph Morris, who was the principal
photographer for Life Magazine, got us together one day, and
we all went out to the beach and he wanted to take a
picture of our three Corvettes with the lunar rover in front. And of course that’s
the 1g lunar rover, but that’s how this
picture came about. So this is the Saturn 5 rollout. Saturn 5. Just a word about Saturn 5. Largest object that’s
ever been launched from the surface of the Earth. We did it. We did it 50 years ago. 50 years ago, we flew
the biggest thing that’s ever been launched in history. We’ve not done it since. Tells you something
about the mentality of the modern world, maybe. Saturn 5– 363 feet long,
thrust, five engines put out 7 and 1/2
million pounds of thrust. We were well over 6 million
pounds on our launch. We were the heaviest
launch in the program, because we carried
lots and lots of stuff. But we were the first
ones to carry the lunar rover on the
surface of the moon, and carry a
scientific instrument module into lunar orbit. And we had a lot of extra
stuff, because we were doing this for the first time. We didn’t really know how much
we could cut down on stuff. So we were the heaviest
launch in the program. This picture here–
oh that’s launch, OK. Took us 12 seconds to get past
the launch umbilical tower. That’s an eternity when
you’re sitting out there, with that 7 and 1/2
million pounds of thrust going out the tail end. That’s an eternity,
let me tell you. We’re out there for two
hours waiting for a launch. Not too excited,
I went to sleep. Got about 45 minutes of
sleep waiting for the launch. 15 minutes before
launch, they woke us up and we did our final
checks, and off we went. It took us 13 and 1/2
minutes to get to 90 miles. We’re getting into a
physics problem now. It took us 13 and 1/2
minutes to get to 90 miles. We could not go any
higher because we didn’t have enough energy
on board to go higher. Compare that, if any of you
have ever seen a shuttle launch, shuttle takes 8
and 1/2 minutes– Jeff, correct me if I’m wrong– 8 and 1/2 minutes to
get to about 130 miles. Or 140, or somewhere
along there, right. 8 and 1/2 to get to 140, it
took us 13 and 1/2 to get to 90. We are in enough of
a sensible atmosphere that we’re running
into molecules up there all the time, and we are
very slowly decelerating. So we only had a certain
amount of time before we either went to the moon,
or we came back home. And I forget what that time
was now, but it seems to me, if I recall, it’s about
nine hours– about six revs. We went around the world
once, and it took us almost all the way
around the world to get us back to doing
what we’re supposed to do, because we’re all plastered
at a window looking at the Earth going by. We finally got back to
making all of out checks, came over Hawaii
the second time, and fired our second
stage engines. Or third stage,
excuse me, the S-IVB. We went from 17,500 to
about 25,000 miles an hour, which is what you
need go to the moon. Now I don’t know
whether you know the physics of going to the
moon or not– pretty simple actually. It’s just throwing
a rock in the air. If I take a rock and I drop it,
what’s that rock trying to do? It’s trying to orbit the
center of gravity of the Earth. That’s exactly what
it’s doing, but it’s not because the Earth gets
in the way, it stops. If I throw it that way,
and maybe I throw it with some velocity
that way, it’s still trying to orbit the
center of gravity of the Earth, but now it’s going
out further, OK. If I throw that rock at
17,500 miles an hour, it’s still trying to get
back to the center of gravity of the Earth, but now the Earth
is curving out underneath it, and you never get
back to the Earth. If I go faster than 17,500, then
the high point of that orbit is going to start moving up,
higher and higher and higher. And the more velocity
I put on it, the higher that elliptical trajectory
now is going to be. 25,000 miles an hour puts
you up at a point where the moon’s gravity
becomes greater than the Earth’s
gravity, and now you’re captured by the moon’s gravity. So that’s how you
get to the moon. Apollo 13, a good example. They just did a figure
eight around the moon and came back,
right, and it was all due to the changeover of gravity
from the Earth and gravity of the moon, and how
they went around the moon and came back to Earth. 25,000, about
25,500 miles an hour is sort of the magic number. That gets you to a high
point, the apogee is high enough so that you are now
captured by the lunar gravity, and you go into the moon. Interesting thing
was– well, there are a lot of things we
had to do on our way, we could talk about
that all day long. I mean, how to eat, how
to drink, how to poop, how to pee, all
that kind of stuff, but that’s all pretty
basic kind of stuff. We never saw the moon till
we were in lunar orbit. The reason is that we had
to fire the engine, which is behind us, to slow down. Now if you are in, let’s
say, an air bearing vehicle that’s moving around,
you’ve got these big engines that will run. If you’re going that way
and you want to stop, you turn that sucker around
completely, fire your engines and come this, you’re not– you’re decelerating along
the line of travel, right. We had to do that to
stay in lunar orbit. So we had to look backwards,
we never saw the moon. And I tell you what, I thank
God that mission control knew what they were doing. Because one little bitty
error 50,000 miles out would have been pretty
disastrous for us. So that’s what it, anyway. There’s the Earth from
about an hour away from– And anybody see where that is? Let’s see. Right here, see what that is? That’s Florida, just
for information. Is it? See South America, you
see the deserts of Chile down on the lower left corner. And that’s Florida, peeking
through the clouds up there. I keep this because that’s where
I live, so everybody will know. OK, the moon. That might be upside
down, you said. That’s OK, this
may be upside down. It doesn’t make a difference. When you’re out in space,
there’s no up or down, it doesn’t make a difference. You get very used to looking
at things from any attitude, it makes no difference at all. The moon. OK, we’ve established
that the moon, the things we see in
the moon are made up of two different things– meteor impacts, and
volcanic activity. We can look at Schroter’s
Valley, Aristarchus Plateau, Hadley Rille, we’ll see some
of the volcanism working. But the big dark circles you
see on the face of the moon are meteor impact craters. And I don’t know, do we have the
age data, like 4 billion years, right? 3, 4 billion years,
something like that? OK, the meteor
storm came through and hit the moon on one side. Each of those
meteors that impacted the surface of the
moon were huge, and the energy of exchange was
enough to liquefy the surface of the moon, we think. At least that’s
my interpretation. So when you’re looking
at the moon at night, you’re seeing
those dark circles, and we say, oh, that’s the
face of the man in the moon. Every single one of
those dark circles is where a meteor impacted
the surface of the moon. And those craters
are 500 miles across, so you can just imagine the
energy that was exchanged when these meteors hit the moon. Now I don’t have a picture
of it but I do somewhere. We’ll come to a few. There’s the CSM. Anyway, the point is
that those craters– our landing site was
on the third wave of the meteor that impacted
and formed Mare Imbrium. 250 miles away from the center
of impact, and that third wave was still 15,000 feet high. The amount of energy exchanged
is just unimaginable, so great. You ever wonder why
one face of the moon always points towards the Earth? Anybody figured that out? Very simple, physical problem. Because see what the MIT
guys and girls, and girls. Due to what? Due to– sorry, due to what? So as the Earth’s gravity
pulls on the moon, the moon gets stretched
by that, I believe. What do you mean stretched? What do you mean, stretched? [INAUDIBLE] Ah, I think there’s a
simpler explanation. Those meteors dumped a
huge amount of material just under the surface
on one side of the moon. So what happens to the
center of gravity the moon? Moves towards that direction. Now you’ve got an
offset center of gravity from the physical
center of the moon, and Earth’s gravitational
field takes care of the rest. It’s like a fishing
bobber, and it’s going to point that way all the time. That’s my interpretation, now
Farouk might have– no, we haven’t talked about that. The center of
gravity of the moon is about two kilometers
closer to the Earth. It’s not in the center of the
moon, it is shifted this way, so it’s locked. Oh I’m so glad, now
I have a number. Thank you. So here’s some of the
photography from the orbit. Tell them more about
that one, yeah. That’s a picture I took just
before I come back home. This is called crescent Earth. Somehow it’s gotten to be
kind of popular with a bunch of people that I know. My original picture
was a montage of two frames that I took. But to me it’s a very
interesting picture, because it reminds me that
when you’re at the moon looking back on the Earth, it
goes through the same phases that the moon does. We don’t often think
about that here, because the Earth
rotates all the time, and you don’t think about– forget the rotation, but the sun
angle on the Earth at the time is going to determine how
much of that Earth rotating you can see. Which reminds me, there’s
another thing too. I’m just full of ideas here,
but the Earth’s rotation. If you were standing
on the equator, and you stood there for 24
hours, how far would you go? Anybody know? 24 hours, stand in one
spot on the equator, how far would you go? You’d go all the
way around once. That’s 24,000 miles in 24 hours. What does that tell you? That tells you that
if you’re standing in one spot on the
equator, you are moving at 1,000 miles per hour. Now, the earth is
rotating to the east. Why do we launch
from the east coast? That’s just a simple
physics problem– we’re taking advantage
of the Earth’s rotation. At the Cape it’s probably
700-800 miles per hour, I don’t know the exact numbers. But when I launch from the
Cape, and I launch to the east, I just got a kick of
700 miles an hour, added onto whatever I got to do. If you’re launching from the
west coast going that way, now you got to make up
the 700 miles an hour, plus another 700
miles an hour to go into a retrograde trajectory. That’s the secret. Now, there’s some
interesting stuff about this. There’s a guy by the
named of Jules Verne. You probably heard of him. He’s an old guy now. He wrote a book
back around 1900, called From Earth to the Moon. Has anybody here
read it besides me? OK, great. Very interesting book, he puts
three guys in a spacecraft, he sends them to the moon,
he brings them back to Earth, they come through
the atmosphere, they land in the
ocean on parachutes. My god does that seem familiar. We picked that up in
the Apollo program, that’s exactly how we did it. More coincidences than that. Launches the His launch site was
just east of Orlando, which is the same latitude
as Kennedy Space Center. And he has all the three
astronauts get drunk as soon as they get there. But the interesting thing was– well it was the gun club
which was in Orlando, right. They’re the ones who
underwrote this big thing, going to the moon. The interesting thing was
he didn’t know anything about rockets, so he had to
fire them out of a cannon. I can’t imagine being fired
out the end of a cannon at 25,000 miles an hour. I’m not sure there’d
be much of me there. I think I’d be mashed
against the back. But anyway, that’s
what they did. But again, he took
advantage of the physics for what he’s trying to do. He launched to the east at
a latitude of 27 degrees. I’m surprised he didn’t
launch them from the equator, but I think the gun
club being in Orlando, they didn’t have the
wherewithal to get everything down to the equator,
that would be my guess. And it was the Columbia, too. It was the Columbia
right, right. So some scenes of lunar orbit. Maybe you could talk
about Tsiolkovskiy and some of the observations
that the crews made. Tsiolkovskiy, interesting. Please correct me, Professor. You know I will. Yeah, yeah. Tsiolkovskiy is a small,
a typically small, crater caused by a meteor impact. Now, a meteor
impact acts exactly as a stone would if you dropped
it in a pond, same thing. First thing that happens when
the stone hits the water, you get a rebound
feature that comes up. When the rebound
feature subsides, you get the waves
that move out, OK. Tsiolkovskiy is an example
of a meteor that impacted– what you’re looking at
is the rebound feature– but there wasn’t
enough energy exchanged to allow the total
process to continue. So we’re still seeing
the rebound feature sticking up from the center
of the meteor impact. And interesting enough, the
walls around Tsiolkovskiy are about 15,000 feet high. These are pretty big objects. So you carried a mapping
camera, and these are few of the images
from the mapping camera. This is the Aristarchus
Plateau, I believe. You can see some
volcanic activity. These are lava flows that have
eroded the surface of the moon. As a matter of fact,
this area here, back in the ’60s I
believe, they actually saw some volcanic activity. They actually saw
some smoke coming up, so it was in this
particular area. We don’t have a
picture of it here, but the most
interesting pictures I can remember
taking on the moon are right at where the
sun goes out of sight. Shadows get very, very
long, and if you’ve ever read any of the
conspiracy theories about all these things on
the moon that the people who write the articles, they
know they’re man-made. Well, when the shadows get long,
things look very different, and you can make out all
kinds of faces, and triangles, and rectangles, and
all kinds of things based on the shadow pattern. I remember there was a
very famous picture, that was just shown here a couple of
weeks ago, of a camel caravan. Maybe some of you have seen
this, National Geographic. Some of the most interesting
pictures ever taken. A picture taken from overhead
of a long string of camels walking across the desert. If you’ve seen that, you
see all the camels in dark, they’re all in dark. Til you read the bottom
line at the print and you say all
the dark that you see is a shadow,
what you’re seeing is a white line at the
base of the shadow, and that’s the camel, you’re
looking straight down at it, you don’t see it. All you see is the dark stuff. So these shadow patterns
are very, very important to geologists, and the
people trying to describe what the moon is like. Very important. These are some from the first– Yeah these are
some more of the– You can see that was a crater
which is almost totally covered with molten lava– which is of course
solidified now– but you’re looking at
the ring around it, and the center of that
is all solidified, what was at one point, molten lava. Very smooth. When we look at the moon we
see the dark faces on the moon, right? Those are not because
it’s dark material. It’s because of the texture of
the object you’re looking at, I believe, isn’t that right? OK, the dark the
dark circles you see are caused by the
texture of the surface, and not because the
material is darker. Moon’s materials pretty
much look the same whenever you look at it. If you’re looking
towards the sun– and I’ve heard this
from other guys– but if you’re looking towards
the sun it’s kind of brown, if you’re looking
away it’s gray, or vice versa I
forget now which. So it all depends
on where the sun is when you’re looking at it,
but the moon is pretty much monochromatic. This is one of the impact
craters from the mapping camera. Timocharis. When we studied– here’s
an interesting one. When we were
studying geology, we had to know, how
do you figure out, how do you decide
the difference, if you see a feature
like this, how do you decide that
it’s a meteor crater, or it’s a volcanic eruption? Because we have things
here in this country– especially down in Texas– called calderas, that look
very much like a meteor impact, very much. So you’ve got to learn how
to differentiate the meteor craters from volcanic activity. So one of the stops we made
in our geology training was down in Meteor
Crater, down in Arizona. When a meteor impacts,
the material comes up and it flows out, OK. Now if I look where that
rests on the ground, if I dig down
through that, I will see old material, new material,
and then old material, OK. You can age date it all the way
down, because what you’ve done is you’ve folded over
a flap of the earth, so you’re looking at
the stuff underneath. Volcano, conversely, when
it spouts everything, it all comes down sequentially. So you don’t get that reversal. Everything you see in a
volcano, the oldest is on the bottom and the
youngest is on the top. But on a meteor crater,
it’s the other way around– the oldest is on top, then you
hit the youngest in the middle, and then the oldest
on the bottom. Just That’s a simple way, but
you’d have to drill through it. And Dave Scott on my flight put
a core sampler down six feet maybe, to check for
stuff like that. Yeah, here’s actually
Dave on the surface. That’s Jim Irwin. Yep, that’s Jim Irwin. You were you able to spot– I think. It’s got the red stripe. No, no it’s got the red
stripe, that is Dave, yeah, OK. I had a 10 power monocular, and
if I got set up exactly right– landing site’s over there
and I’m coming over, if I have set up exactly
right and I catch them early, and I don’t change
anything, then I can track them
all the way through. Which you did. Which I did several times,
but most of the time I’d get partway up and
I’d lose sight of them, and then I could
never find them again. We’re going too fast, we’re
going 5,000 miles an hour at 60 miles. So it’s very tough. Now, makes me think
of, have you all heard about Cooper’s treasure? Anybody heard about that,
you heard about that? Well supposedly Gordon
Cooper, from orbit, drew maps of treasure ships. Now he’s going 17,500 miles an
hour, at probably 130 miles. I find it amazing that he’s
able to spot them, draw them, and look for them
the next time around. He didn’t have anything else
to do, I guess, I don’t know. Did you see that Jeff? It’s on the Discovery Channel. It’s called Cooper’s Treasure,
and there’s a treasure hunter who’s got those old
maps, and he’s– we’re going to find out
if that’s real or not. Under the ocean? Yeah. Well, Jeff, that was
exactly my reaction. Oh, yeah, it’s under the
ocean, oh yeah, yeah. And he’s going 17,500 over it. I had a hard time at
5,000 finding those guys and keeping track of
them, looking at them. With no atmosphere. Yeah with no atmosphere, which
is better really, absolutely. So this is the rover on
the edge of Hadley Rille. This is the rover we had. Our rover was electric powered,
four wheel steer, four wheel drive. It had a joystick, you push
it forward you go forward, you pull it back and
you brake, and you pull it back a little
more and you go backwards. You twist it right and
wheels turn to the right, you twist it left. And you have
switches, so you could steer by the front
wheels, you could steer by the back wheels,
any combination you want. The future car– we’re going to
see a lot of them on the roads, I think. Stuff like that, we’re
already seeing electric cars. All we’re waiting for
now is the joystick, and I suspect that’s coming. It will be coming, and
it’ll make it a lot easier. In the first place, when
you get into the car, you don’t have to worry about
getting around the steering wheel to get in, because
there won’t be anything there. So anyway, it’s going to be fun. This thing was
designed by Boeing, and we were going to
carry it on our flight, but there was a problem
with the lunar module. Boeing couldn’t make it work. We happened to know some
people at General Motors, so we called the chairman
of General Motors, Ed Cole, who was a friend. Told him what the
problem was and he said, if Boeing
would agree to it, send it down to Santa
Barbara where our research cities, and I’m
trying to think, who was in charge of Santa Barbara
back then, it was one of the– NASA administrator, he
came on as the NASA– Tom Paine. No it wasn’t Tom Paine, it
was– anyway, Woods Hole– Bob Frosch. Frosch, yeah I think
Frosch was the guy– He was from Woods Hole. Yeah, yeah I think so. So anyway, we sent
it down there, and within a month General
Motors had it all sorted out, made it work. So it was good. You left a plaque
to some of the crew. Yeah this is a
little side issue. We had a Belgian
sculptor who did a little symbolic
fallen astronaut for us, and you can see it
here in this picture. And we decided we’d leave that
as a memorial to all those, both Russian and US, that had
died in the pursuit of space. And so then we had this
little plaque made up with all the names on
it, and Dave left this on the lunar surface. Turned out to be a
little bit of a problem, because a couple of
months after the flight, we found out that there was
an art shop in New York– Waddell– were selling models of
this fallen astronaut for $750, and they had made 1,000 of them. So that was a nice little
payback to the sculptor who did that, even though one side
claimed that he knew he was not supposed to, and he claimed that
he never heard anything that he couldn’t. And it was just his
word against hers, and you know kind of thing. So anyway he stopped
selling them. He has become a dear friend
of mine, he’s 93 years old. I stayed with him for four days
last year when I was giving a talk in Amsterdam–
or in Antwerp– to a UN committee that
was meeting there, and I stayed with him. Wonderful guy,
wonderful sculptor. He came over here a few
years ago, the Smithsonian. Were you there then,
when he came over? The Smithsonian had a
big celebration for him here about 10 years ago,
and he came over and– Smothsonian,
everything is forgiven. Air and Space Museum, yep. Yeah, Air and Space Museum. Wonderful guy, but that’s
what this all was all about, was a memorial to those
who’d lost their lives in the pursuit of space. Or actually, this
memorial was those who had lost their lives
in space, I believe. Except I think we had the Apollo
1 crew on there too, didn’t we? Yeah I don’t remember,
Larry you probably remember who all the
guys we have on it. [INAUDIBLE] I don’t think we had
Ted Freeman on there. [INAUDIBLE] That was about
three or four weeks before, or a couple of months
before Apollo 15, so that’s when you
guys proposed it. Did we have Charlie
Bassett on that, I forget. OK, Bassett and Elliott See. So here’s the– OK here we come to
kind of the final– and we’ll wrap this up. After they’d been on the
surface for three days, and I had had my joy ride
for three days without them. People have asked me a million
times, wasn’t it lonely up there by yourself
and I’d say, oh, you’ve got to
be kidding, no. That was the best
time of flight, well why was it the
best time of flight? Well, let me put
it to you this way. Our spacecraft was 220
cubic feet of volume. That doesn’t mean
anything, until I tell you that’s the size of
a Volkswagen Beetle. So if you can imagine
getting two people and yourself inside a Volkswagen
Beetle, close the doors, and you stay there
for two weeks, you’ll have some
understanding of what it was like with those two guys. So after 4 and 1/2
days with those guys, they went down to
the lunar surface and I thought, hallelujah, I got
rid of those guys for a while, I can be all by myself. So I spent three glorious
days by myself in lunar orbit, doing all the work. I worked about 20
hours a day, I only slept about four hours a
night, because you’re only going to be there once. We’re not going back. So you do everything,
plus plus plus plus. You do everything and then you
think up things to do, right. So I did that for three days. Dave comes back up
into orbit, and I’ll let you in on a little secret. Most people think that
the three guys on a crew are blood brothers, that
they’re close as close can be, that they’re all
buddies, that they all do everything together– not true. Dave and I never really
got along that well, OK. But he was the commander so I
always did everything his way. During the training
program, we’d come through all the
procedures and flight plans and all that kind of stuff. And I developed my
own ideas about how things should be done, and
I’d talk them over with Dave, then we always ended
up doing him his way. So I kept track of these things,
because I didn’t like that. So I get him out here, 50 feet. Now I’m in the vehicle
that can come home. [LAUGHTER] And I felt, you know, I got that
sucker right where I want him. So he said, let’s
dock and finish up, and I said, no
no, no no, I think you and I need to have a little
discussion before you die. You’ve got to have a sense
of humor, let me tell you. You got to have
a sense of humor, as anybody knows who’s been
through the routine of going into space. Jeff, your own Jeff
Hoffman here knows only too well, you’ve got to
have a sense of humor or you’re not going to make it. You’re not going
to make it through. But you’ve got to do
all the right stuff too, but you got to have
a sense of humor. I want to have you say a
few words about the EVA. So you did a EVA on the
way back from the moon, the furthest away from Earth. Right, that is the one
Guinness record I have that will never be beaten, is
I did the first deep space EVA. We had these two cameras in the
scientific instrument module. One was the icon large register
high resolution camera, which had been designed
originally for the U-2 program in this country, taking pictures
from 60,000-70,000 feet. It was declared
obsolete, so we were able to carry it on our flight. The only thing we could not
do, we were told very strongly the one thing you cannot
do, is point it at Russia. And I thought, that’s
a strange thing. I mean, if I was at 60,000
feet taking pictures of Russia, I’d be a little concerned too. But if I’m at 240,000 miles
taking a picture of Russia, I’m not sure we’d ever
find anything on there that was any value to
anybody, but anyway, couldn’t point at Russia. So we had this
[INAUDIBLE] camera that took high resolution picture. I actually had pictures of the
lunar rover on the surface. It’s only less than
four feet wide, OK, so we got pictures of it. The other camera
was a mapping camera that had a laser altimeter
that recorded on each– Frame. Each? Frame, exposure, yeah. Yeah, the exact
altitude, so that they could use that to make pretty
accurate maps of the moon. So anyway these are outside,
they’re out in that open bay, and it was my job to go
out and retrieve those, so I went out twice. How many engineers
we got in the room? Quite a few. OK, I’m going to
tell you a story. May I take a few more minutes? OK, got to tell you a story. When I got assigned
to Apollo 15, the procedure for getting
these film canisters back into the spacecraft was
pretty well along the way, OK. One of the other astronauts–
who had already made a flight– was doing all the
engineering work, and he had gone through
several different procedures and different equipment. One was a long
claw arm that they could– like a can of the air. But what he what he
ended up going with– which if I hadn’t said something
that’s what we would use– was an endless clothesline. Now the idea was that I grab
a stalk with a pulley on it and the endless clothesline
wrapped around the pulley, and I’d carry that out with me,
put it in a station out there, and stretch out this
endless clothesline. So then I’d go out there and
I’d clip the film canister to the clothesline, and
Jim would pull it back in. And I gave that a little
thought and I said, uh-uh. It’ll never work. How have you tested this? Well we’ve tested it
thoroughly in the water tank. Well how do you test a 90 pound
canister in the water tank? Well you make it out of Teflon,
you cut a lot of holes in it, and you make it as neutrally
buoyant as you can make it. And you think that’s going to
resemble what it is in space? Well that’s the
best we could do, and I said, well
that won’t work, and I’m going to prove to you. So we get the zero-g
airplane going, we get the mock up and we get
all this stuff from the hatch to the back of the SIM bay– or the back of the
Service Module– and I go back there and I
grab this 90 pound canister, I click it to the clothesline. Now we’re doing these
parabolas, so you’re only getting about 30 seconds
at a time, right. During the middle
of those parabolas, the canister got
about halfway back, and it started to sway back
and forth, because there’s no atmosphere, and there’s no
gravity, and it’s 90 pounds. So if it starts
moving in a direction, ain’t nothing out there to stop
it except that clothesline. So it started whipping
back and forth. It knocked an RCS quad right off
the side of the service module. See? What do you think
we ought to do? OK, I said, I’m an engineer. But I am an engineer that
thinks the simplest way you can do something is the best way. So here’s what I
think we ought to do– I’ll just go out and grab it
bring it back with my hand. Simplest thing, I mean how
could it get more simple than that right? Well they didn’t like that
because that was unsafe– suppose I let go of it. So, OK, do a risk tether
with a hook on the end of it. And then if I let
go of the canister it’s not going to
go anywhere, right. OK, so we go try that,
and it works fine. Week later, the engineers
come back to me and say, well we’re still not happy
about the safety of that, so what we’d like to
do is drill a hole in the hinge pin of the
clip, and put a pin in it. So there’s no way that
clip could come loose, OK. So they put that in and we went
and tried it, and it was fine. Two weeks later they
come back and they say we’re still not happy with it. What do you need, what
do you want to do? Well, the pip pin that goes
through the hole in the hinge, we want to drill a hole
in the end of that, and we want to put a
cotter key in that hole so that the pin won’t come out,
so that the clip won’t open, so that you– Oh, Jesus Christ, OK,
so that’s what we did. The other thing about
the EVA that I thought was kind of funny is,
I’m on an umbilical and the umbilical is– Yeah, OK, here you go. This is the only picture
they got of me by the way. They got 7,000
pictures of each other, and this is the one
they got of me, OK. So anyway I’m– you think there
wasn’t a conspiracy back then? So anyway, I’m on an
umbilical, five PSI, it’s an open loop system. We’ve got a valve in the suit
that relieves at five PSI, OK. So you get this
pressure coming in– I don’t know what the incoming
pressure was, probably six, seven pounds,
something like that– and you relieve at five PSI. Now if for some reason
the flow rate goes down, there’s a warning tone,
if the pressure goes down, there’s a warning tone,
those are two things that could trigger it. What kind of signal
did this guy– one of the astronauts
before me, same guy who did the clothesline, right. And I kind of figured,
that’s why I was sort of looking at it for a problem. It’s just a tone. Just a tone. I don’t think it will work. Why? If you’ve ever listened
to a monotone for more than 30 seconds, and you
haven’t forgotten all about it by the end of 30 seconds,
I’ll miss my guess. You do not retain a monotone. Oh they said, I don’t
think that’s a problem. I said well it is a problem and
I’m going to prove it to you. I went in the vacuum
chamber, had a whole raft of guys up in the control room. Chuck Lepinto was my
doctor, and he was there. Ran the chamber down to vacuum. Five PSI, I’m
sitting in this, suit I stuck my finger in
the outflow valve, because I wanted to drop
the pressure in the suit to trigger the alarm, OK. So I get down to 3 and 1/2
PSI, and the tone comes on, and I just held it there. And about a minute later,
you couldn’t hear it anymore, it was gone. And then I wanted to carry
it a little bit further, so I kept lowering the
pressure in the suit till I got down to 2 and 1/2. 2 and 1/2 is the theoretical
limit that you can survive, OK. If you get down to 2 and
1/2, that’s pretty bad. But I went down to 2 and
1/2 that day, guess what? The sound disappeared
completely– why? Not enough molecules in the
air to sustain a sound wave, down at 2 and 1/2 PSI. You’re close to a vacuum. So what did we end up with? You ever heard a
French police warbler? You cannot get away from it,
you can hear it five miles away. And that’s what we went with. Keep it simple, keep it simple. And there’s the
painting of the picture that you wish you had taken. Yeah this is a painting by a
guy by the name of Pierre Mion, and this painting is hanging
very proudly in the Air and Space Museum in Washington. And when they don’t
have it on display, they have it very,
very carefully secured away, because it’s
one of their prized paintings. This guy is fabulous,
now, they would not let me take a camera
out on my EVA. I argued and argued and argued,
oh you got to take the camera. There might be things out
there that we don’t know about that we really need to
have photographic proof of, and they couldn’t
figure out anything. So when I get back,
Pierre and I get together, and we spent days and
days and days going over, and he would draw
this thing and I’d give him what I saw out there. And the interesting thing is
that, if you look carefully alongside where
the RCS quads are, you’ll see some
bubbling on the surface. They didn’t think
that would happen. So we told him something,
that those RCS quads actually scorch the surface, so they
had to be a little careful how they handled the surface
in the Service Module. Interesting things and
important things that we were to found out. They allowed cameras
after me, because we had sort of made the point. But they wouldn’t
let me carry one out. I went out twice, I got the
high resolution camera film in, and then I got that
mapping camera film in. I went out a third time and put
my feet in some foot restraints and just stood up
and looked around. And it was kind of
unbelievable, because I could see both the Earth and
the moon at the same time. They’re both sitting
out there, like that– unbelievable. But say something about
the starfield that– Oh, we’re getting in– you’ve got another five hours? Starfield. And I don’t know what
the real numbers are, but I’m going to give
you some generalizations, but if you look
through the sky here I think you can count something
like 10 to the 6 stars, is it Jeff, something like that? I don’t know. Not in Boston. Like a million maybe? I don’t know. No, wouldn’t even be
a million, anyway. There’s no question
that, that light comes through the
atmosphere, a lot of it doesn’t get all the way through. The smaller, the ones with
less density or less intensity, don’t make it through
the atmosphere, so you’re not
seeing all the stars that you could see if
there were no atmosphere. On a dark night in
the desert you’ll see a couple of thousand stars. Yeah, OK, or down in Chile. If you go to the top
of a mountain in Chile, actually you can see
the [INAUDIBLE] there. It’s a little less because
your night vision decreases when you have less oxygen, but
still a couple of thousand. Well the funny part
Jeff, was that when I was in a pie shaped section of
my trajectory around the moon, I was shadowed from both
the sun and from the Earth. So I had no light shining
on me from anything we’ve got in our own system. Only light I had
was from starlight. Now we had 37 of
the brightest stars that we used for navigation. And we spent all of
our time in astronomy, learning where those
stars were, and learning what the guide stars were
to get us to those stars. So I get to this section
in back of the moon, where I’m shadowed from both
the sun and from the Earth, and I’m looking at the starfield
out there, the universe out there, the other
way, and I could not find a single navigation star. All I saw was a wash of light. No single stars anywhere. I could see the
horizon of the moon, because of the light
that was cut off. That’s how I saw the
horizon of the moon– unbelievable. Millions of times more
stars I could see out there than you can see
through the atmosphere. So the bottom line– and you’re probably all
familiar with Carl Sagan’s story that became Contact. He always talked about, from
a mathematical standpoint there has to be life out there. No matter how many
stars you see, there’s going to be a percentage
of them that are going to be the size of our sun. And of those, there are going
to be a percentage of them that have a planetary system,
and then of those there are going to be– I could go on and on and on. But it doesn’t
make any difference how far you carry out that
thinking, you get to the bottom and there’s at least
one, somewhere, that’s going to be ideal for life. So I got to thinking about that. We’re in the Milky
Way galaxy, and we’re talking 400 billion
stars, and we’re talking another 200
billion galaxies out there. And I know right, we’re
talking universes now, but how many universes
are there out there? It’s a good question. We think there is
only one, but I’ve talked to astronomers who
say, I’m really not sure. So we may begin to
think in bigger terms than we’ve been taught
all of our lives. It may be a whole
different thing out there. Anybody seen interstellar? Dumb movie, but
anyway, it’s fun. I happen to like Matthew
McConaughey so it was OK. I did not like Matt
Damon in that movie. He was the bad guy. All right, so I’d like
to use the remaining time to get questions
from the students, and if you could use the
mic, that would be best. So I’ll start with the students
that are taking the class, and then we’ll open up
to a broader audience. I got the first one. He’s too eager, this
is gonna be a good one. Oh, it’s a fun one, I promise. So as you may know SpaceX
announced they have a lunar tourism thing going on now. Maybe. Maybe, all right we’ll see. But you mentioned
earlier that before it was kind of being in like a
Volkswagen, when you got three dudes in a Volkswagen,
and then you’re all alone when everyone
else went to the surface. So a little birdie tells
me that that two people– it’s a girlfriend, a dude and
his girlfriend from somewhere– and so I want to know what your
opinion on tourism in space, and also specifically
Blue Origin and SpaceX I’m sorry– Blue Origin, and SpaceX, and
space tourism in general. I think low-Earth orbit
space tourism is great. I suspect we’ll have a Hilton
Hotel up there sometime. We’ve got lots of inflatables
that would probably turn into modules for a
nice little hotel up there. And I think that’s
great, let’s leave that to SpaceX and
Blue Origin, and maybe Boeing with the
Starliner, Orbital ATK. We’ve got a bunch
of them, they’re all going to be talking about that. I find it kind of
interesting that we keep talking about civilian
space programs like SpaceX. Guess who’s paying SpaceX
to do what they do? The US government. So there’s a part of me that
says, why are we doing that? I mean, if we’re going
to pay them to do it, why don’t we just go ahead
and do it ourselves, right. On the other hand,
I realize that when somebody like Elon
Musk comes along who is a brilliant individual,
and he can design a system that not only launches but comes back
and lands on the launch pad, then you’ve got
something going for you, and I don’t think NASA would
be very good at doing that. Because we think
in different terms. But I have been to his launches,
and watched his thing come back and land, and it’s fantastic. He’s going to send
two guys to the moon, around the moon, come
back, and they’re not going to have a pilot with them. I don’t think I like that. If something goes wrong– forgive me, that’s
not the right thing. Sir, so this
question is prompted by your study of the safety pin
that had the safety pin in it. So I was intrigued
actually in the book, about the incident
about 61 hours mission elapsed time,
when there was a water leak around the chlorination
cap that created a ball of water in the spacecraft. And within about 17
minutes you had it fixed, with the help from the ground. You said in the book that– how did you put it, it was
about that robots can’t fix themselves, machines
can’t fix themselves, and that’s about the start
of humans in the loop. So how would you comment
on what’s happening today, where some
researchers are trying to work towards systems
to be used on Mars which are totally autonomous,
in preparation for humans going to Mars. How does that sit
with your experience? I think that’s an absolute
natural progression. I think before you send people
someplace, you send something, that if it gets destroyed it’s
not going to kill anybody, OK. So you send a robot to
the moon, you send a car, you send a rover to Mars and you
do all you can with the rover. And while you’re waiting
for the manned program to mature enough so
you can send the man, you keep sending
these objects there, and they become more and more
sophisticated along the way, until you actually
get to a point where, hey, maybe they’re
almost as good as a man. However, I will say, the
problem with anything mechanical is garbage in, garbage out. A robot is only going to do
what it’s programmed to do. Now, I don’t know,
maybe we will end up with robots that can actually
extrapolate and think on their own. I don’t know, maybe
that’ll happen someday. But we don’t have them now. So right now anything you
put into a software program is what you’re going to get out. Give you an example. The water that you talked about. Well there’s one
even more interesting than that– we lost a bowl
of tomato soup one day. You know, it’s interesting,
we don’t think about it a lot, but we basically rely on
gravity for everything we do. Why is a spoon
made the way it is? Did you ever think about it? Why is a spoon
made the way it is? It’s to hold the liquid in
the spoon, because of gravity. You get in space, you don’t
have gravity working for you, but you got two other things. You’ve got adhesion of
the liquid to the spoon, and you’ve got what’s called
surface tension, which encloses the ball of
liquid on your spoon. And you can dip into a tomato
soup, hold your spoon up, you’ve got a big ball of
tomato soup on the end, and it’s going to stay there,
it’s not going anywhere. If it’s too hot,
you let go of it, let it float around for a while. It’s going to come back around
to you, sooner or later. And you wait till it
comes back around, if it’s cooled off enough,
you go ahead and eat it. Now, if you open that
bag a little too fast, you break the surface tension,
and a ball of tomato soup would come out, and it
happened to us one day. We had a ball of tomato soup
come out, big as my fist. And it started floating around
inside the spacecraft, OK. What do you do with a
ball of tomato soup? And here’s where I
figure, robots would never figure this out. So you can’t touch it,
because if you touch it you’re going to break
the surface tension, now you got 1,000 little
balls floating around. A straw won’t do
it, because that means you’ve got to touch it. So what do you think we did,
what’s the best solution? Well, I’ll tell
you what we did– we got a towel, wrapped
around it, and we absorbed it. Robot would never think of that. That’s why I say– Robots don’t eat tomato soup. Yeah, right. Had to wring it out
of the towel, Jeff. I think this is
the world we’re in. Why don’t you go to the mic. We’re sort of on the first
step of robotic emulation of what humans do. 100 years from now, it’s
going to be totally different. They’re going to
be much smarter, we might have interactive
brains, all kinds of things. But right now we’re
not there, yeah? So this expands a little
bit on your robot talk, but some kind of question the
scientific value of Apollo, especially at the
beginning, and particularly in the cost of sending
humans to the moon. Assign a value? The scientific value
of Apollo and going to the moon, and
particularly the costs of sending humans,
the additional costs of sending humans to the moon. How important was the human
aspect of being on the moon, and encircling the
moon, and getting that up close, observational
input from a human? There’s no substitute
for a pair of eyes. You can’t, you just can’t
do it, unless you’ve got a thinking brain,
and a trained individual doing that work. I don’t think you could ever
develop a mechanical device that could interpret
things that you see, extrapolate stuff, and
figure out ahead, think ahead about what you’re doing. I think the scientific value
of what we did on the moon, I think there’s a real value
to it, but the real value to it is only in the
context of what we’re going to do next, in my mind. We’ve got to go to Mars. We may have to go to an asteroid
in the meantime, I don’t know. But I believe that what
we’ve done on the moon– number one, we’re really
kind of zeroing in on how’d the moon get there. What’s the genesis of the moon? How did it get
there, and I think we’re leaning more and more
about the Pacific Ocean, are we not? There was an object
that came by Earth. Gravitational effects pulled
a big chunk out of the Earth, and that became the moon. I think that’s the way,
that’s kind of where people are going today. But we’ve got to think
about these things, and I don’t think we would find
out that much about the moon if we just had robots there. If we’re just doing
Mars curiosity stuff, we’re just taking pictures, well
there’s a few things too, but– We’re finding out what the
surface is like, but maybe not a lot of stuff
that we really need to know down the line. Kind of related to that,
I’ve read a JPL document that quoted a figure of the
entire daily productivity of a Martian rover could
be achieved in 45 seconds by a human geologist. So how do you think the
future exploration of Mars– how do you think the geological
discoveries that we’ll make a lot of easy changes once
we have a human crew there, instead of these robotic rovers? I’ve got to tell you, I have
a very different attitude about all that. We’re going to get to Mars. I don’t know when. It might be 10 years,
it might be 30 years, it might be 100 years, I
don’t know and I don’t care. Because in the long
term of events, doesn’t make any difference. If we get to Mars
in 1,000 years, we’re still going to be fine. If we get to Mars
in a million years, we’re still going to be fine. Doesn’t make any difference. Because Mars is not our goal,
Mars is a step along the way. And getting to Mars
is just one more step towards where we
really need to be, and that’s on another
planet, like ours. So all this talk about– and I think it’s very important
that we promote the exploration side, because that’s how you
get the population to say, oh that’s a great idea, let’s
put some money in that to go do that. But the underlying cost to
me is that that gives us some other capability,
then the next step is a little further
out, and the next step’s a little further out, and pretty
soon we’re going someplace that we can live. Because we know we
can’t live here. The day will come. I mean there’s only so
much hydrogen in the sun. And it’s pretty
well calculated now how long the sun is going
to last before it burns out. Maybe another 3, 4, 5
billion years, I don’t know. Jeff, you probably have
the number better than I– 5 billion? OK, 5 billion years from
now we won’t be able live here anymore. Now if we haven’t killed
each other all off by then, whatever
population survives five billion years
from now is going to have to go somewhere else. So we better have a
capability to do that, and I say what we’re doing today
is the very, very, very tiny little steps in that direction. You know the old
Chinese theorem– a trip of 1,000 miles
starts with one step. And that’s kind of where we
are in space, that first step. I would like to add from the
scientific point of view, indeed, all of the
methodology of observation has improved a great
deal since Apollo time, and that’s the way it should be. Every generation picks
it a little farther out. So the instruments that
have been floating around on the surface of Mars are
10 times better than anything that we had during the
Apollo years, which is fine. And we were able
to learn a little more about the color
of the Martian surface, what’s the reason
behind the color, and where the ice might be,
and how thick it might be, and where, and all
of that is wonderful. So the developments in
unmanned technologies are developing very well
throughout this planetary exploration time. And we wish to see
that this continues, so that there will be further
development, so we can send these things much further out. As he said, the time scale of
our lifetime is irrelevant. So we need to make sure that
this is the path to the future. More questions? I have a follow on
to that last point. So what are the
discoveries that you think we’ll make on Mars
from a geological standpoint with human exploration,
that we wouldn’t make with robotic exploration? With human exploration? Yeah. As we just said, in
the Apollo program there was a limit to what
we can see from photographs or observations from
whatever we have from the instruments,
to what the humans that flew around the moon or
on the surface have made. Vast differences, because
of the human ability, because of the ability
of the human eye to distinguish all kinds of
things and colors and so on, and the human mind, the
interaction between the two, to a point to do certain things. There is no comparison,
the human mind, the human capabilities, add a
great deal to the instruments. Talk closer to the mic. Sorry I’m short. She’s an Air Force officer. Air Force? Yes sir. What do you fly? So I’m a flight test engineer,
I worked on C-17 and KC-135 before I came here. That’s just as good. Thank you. With all these
robots going around, we won’t need pilots in
another 10 years anyway. We’ll need them for a
little while longer. So regarding the
moon, do you think there’s still more to learn
as far as geology on the moon? And will it take further manned
expeditions to get there, or do you think we can do it
with the orbiters and landers? Both, there are
all kinds of things that we can do with the
unmanned instruments from orbit, and there are all
kinds of things that we can do from
home, but there is a great deal about the
moon that we have not really learned a lot, from the crust
and the far side composition, the crust in the southern
portion of the moon. There are several
questions about the moon, including the origin,
whether the moon was the wife of the Earth, or
the child of the Earth, or the girlfriend of the
Earth, all of these theories are still floating together. So there is a great deal
to discuss about the moon from the scientific
point of view, concerning the exact origin,
the exact composition, and how it changed with time. You know it’s interesting, and
you can correct me if I’m– OK, I will. The light elements are gone
from the surface of the moon– why? Because the mean free molecular
velocity of those light elements is faster than the
escape velocity of the moon. Not faster than the escape
velocity here on Earth, and that’s why we’ve retained
an atmosphere and the surface that we have. But on the moon, you’re
seeing much heavier elements, because the light
ones are all gone. Including an atmosphere. Yeah, including the
atmosphere, right, exactly. So what landing sites
would you go back to or– which ones? I would send people to the first
site where he picked up a very good sites [INAUDIBLE] There are
places on the far side that– But I would need a flying
machine to get around. OK, we’ll give you one. You’ll give me one. Hi, thank you so much
for being here today. My question for you is,
when you were deciding where exactly to
land on the moon, how did you manage a lot of the
risk involved, because I feel like you had some very
limited information in terms of defining where to land. And what was the
most surprising thing that you found once
you landed on the moon? Yeah, we sent
pilots to the moon, and we had lots of pilots,
so if these didn’t make it, then there are others
that will make it so– The landing site studies
were very thorough, knowing that there is absolutely
no potential for any error that would make that landing site
less safe than something else. So that we were
absolutely certain that all of the
calculations would give you this location and that
location, we knew as a geologist that it is absolutely
certain, and such and such. And the only problem that
we had was with Apollo 11, and it had nothing to
do with the geology, it had to do with the velocity
at the of time of separation. So the spacecraft
took them farther out from the selected site, and
therefore Neil Armstrong had to fly by hand to get
away from a rock field. But everything else was
studied very thoroughly beforehand to make sure that the
geology permits a safe landing site, within a proper area
for the rest of the mission to be to be undertaken. So there was really no
question about that. And as far as what would
happen if they did not do it, because they are pilots
they knew how to maneuver, and they could– even if they
came all the way down, and were able to find that there
is no spot for them, there is a way to lift up. Just one simple little thing. The last 25 feet of every
single lunar landing we made during the
Apollo program, the commander of that flight
had to fly at the last 25 feet. You had to have a man
there, you could not have done it
robotically, because they would have landed on a rock,
or a crater or something. Which, again, a robot wouldn’t
know what to do about. Come on, and Rocky you
have a question, I think. And a few others, I want to make
sure everyone from the class gets in. With the J Missions
of the Apollo program you saw the start of the
integration of science trained and test pilot
trained astronauts. Can you comment on the
early cultural relationships between those two
types of astronauts, and whether there were any
challenges integrating crews of science trained
versus test pilot trained people on these ships? You talking about
the progression of what was required
of somebody flying, as when we started the program
through the Apollo program? Yes, and then culminating
with Apollo 17 with Jack Schmidt being
geologist trained, and then more and more
into the shuttle program we have science trained and
pilot trained people working together. Well, I have nothing
against Jack. I do. Yeah, I know. Jack’s OK, he was a geologist. However, if you were to
take the science that was done by Jack on 17, compare
that to the science that was done by Dave Scott and
Jim Irwin on Apollo 15, I think you’d see
a big difference, because Dave and
Jim were absolutely focused on the geology, and
Jack is a trained geologist, so it was just another kind of
another geology thing to him. But with Dave and Jim,
they were absolutely focused on doing geology. Now let me make a comment too. The original Mercury
guys, all seven of them. There weren’t any
academics in the group. They’re all pilots,
they’re all test pilots. The next group
that came in would be Tom Stafford, and Frank
Borman, and those guys. Now we’re feeding in
more and more academics. Frank Borman, as an example,
was one of my instructors at West Point when I was there. So he was a professor
at West Point. Very, very smart guy. I think Tom Stafford is one
of the smartest guys there is. They didn’t have all
the advanced degrees, but they were a step up, and
then they got the third group. Guys like Bill Anders, who was
a graduate nuclear engineer, and they got a bunch
of guys like that. My group came along,
19 of us, I don’t know. We’re all PhDs and
multiple master’s degrees, because we were selected
into the Apollo program. So they really looked at
the academic background, and we also had to
have the flying too. But we let guys in that
were not test pilots, because they had PhDs. OK, so it was kind of a mix. But you could see
the emphasis shifting during the Mercury, Gemini, and
the first part of the Apollo program, that more and more
academic excellence was required of the people
that flew on those flights. Now we go to the
shuttle program, now you have a very clear split. You’ve got two pilots
up front, you’ve got five scientists in the back. We don’t have to worry about
a pilot being a scientist. We can separate them out. Space station, same way. We don’t even need pilots
in the space station. How long’s it been since we sent
a pilot to the space station? Scott Kelly’s
probably the last one. We don’t do that,
they don’t need it. Now if we go to Mars,
and however they’re going to do it– and I have real problems
with what they’re talking about– but they’re
going to send probably four people in the Orion space
to could go anywhere they can leave that Earth orbit and I think they’re still
trying to figure out the– I think they are too, but
that’s the last I heard, because the Orion is not capable
of going to Mars and back. OK, it’s a bad
vehicle, bad machine. Built like Apollo,
which is not good. Apollo would come back
from the moon no problem. You all know what L/D means? Sure, everybody knows what– lift-to-drag. If I fly a Cessna, I’m going to
have a lift-to-drag of probably eight to one. If I fly a U-2 it’s 30 to one. If I fly a really, really
good glider it’s 40 to one. I got lots and lots
of time in what’s called an F-104 Starfighter,
it’s got an L/D of four to one. You better know
what you’re doing when you land that thing,
because it’s coming down like a rock. L/D of Apollo was 0.27, which
meant you got a little lift, but it’s like taking an
airplane and turning the wing 87 degrees into the air flow. OK, that air flow’s going to go
down that three degree incline, and it’s going to give
you a little lift. It’s more Newtonian than
anything else at first. So in Apollo, we could come
back at 17,500 and we were OK, and we could do cross
range maneuvering up to about 1,500 miles. L/D of 0.27, which is the
new Orion that they’re talking about, coming back from
Mars at 35,000 miles an hour does not have enough lift
to stay in the atmosphere. Got one or two things– either
burn it up on atmosphere, if you’re too steep, or you
skip out of the atmosphere, go to what they call a high
key, slow down, and then come back in the second time. This is a make around for
the lack of capability of the spacecraft. So we’ve got some
problems, we’ve got some problems
that got to be solved. And I’m personally not
happy with the direction they’re going, because
they’re building Orion which looks like Apollo, and
that’s why they built the Orion, because
it looks like Apollo, and that’s all they
knew how to do. SpaceX Dragon
that’s another one. Boeing Starliner, another one,
they all look like Apollo. Enough said. They keep thinking Apollo
worked, so let’s do– Yeah but it worked coming
back from the moon at 17,500, it didn’t it didn’t have
to come back from Mars at 35,000, that’s the problem. Good afternoon sir,
thank you for being here. My question would be about
simulation and training. About what? Simulation and training. So you mentioned in
your book that you were training for disaster,
and a normal flight would be a piece of cake,
and at the same time that big chunk of
this training– I’m not talking about
the scientific training, but the technical training–
was also very tedious. But with some parts, which
would be more exciting. So what was the single most
useful part of the training that you felt was really, really
helped you during the flight? Well I could answer
that one or two ways. The most interesting
part of our training was flying a T-38 from
Houston to wherever we were going to train. That was the most
fun part, and that’s what really kept us going. Simulator training,
I got 1,500 hours of flying a simulator
over a three year period– that’s 500 hours a year,
which is 25% of my time. That’s eight to 10 to
12 hours at a time, sitting or laying in a
simulator, to go through a– you can’t you can’t
compress the time that it takes to do
a maneuver in space, you’ve got to do
it in real time. Otherwise it doesn’t
mean anything. So if I’m doing a
rendezvous and docking that’s going to take 10 hours,
I’ve got to be there 10 hours. That gets pretty boring. I got to tell you, you just lay
there– in fact, we had a guy. Jack Swigert was a good friend
of mine, he was on Apollo 13. Unfortunately died
back in ’89, I think, after he got
elected to Congress. Jack was famous for doing
all these simulations and falling asleep during
launch in the simulation. And that’s the way guys got. You had to do the
simulations, it was the only way you’re going
to learn, the only thing– We had the best
simulators in the world, they were absolutely
fantastic, they were 3-D. I could look out a
window in the command module, and if I moved my
head I could look down the length of the nose
of the command module, just like you would
if it was real. I don’t know how they did it. It was unbelievably good. So they were very realistic,
the noises and the vibrations were all there. The only thing we didn’t
have was the G-Forces, and we didn’t have the vacuum. But everything else was great. The most boring training of
all was geology classroom, because it was just, you look
at a rock and you look at a rock and you look at a rock and
you hear all this stuff. The field trips were
fabulous, I have to tell you. We did field trips in Hawaii,
Alaska, Iceland, Mexico, the great southwest, Oregon, we
hit all the great spots right. And they were
always so much fun. I spent 10 days in Iceland, we
went to the outback in Iceland. We went clear to the
north coast in Iceland, which is a town that
was awake 24 hours a day, because the sun shone 24
hours a day when we were there. So at 3 o’clock in the morning
you’d go down to Main Street and there’s a whole crowd
down there, window shopping. These were the fun
things that we did. Just a little side
comment, I had a deal with, I had two geology instructors. Gordon Swann and Tim
Haight, and we had a deal. And the deal was that when we
went on a field trip, one of us had to take a bottle of vodka. Had to be a certain kind– had to be a bottle of Oso
Negro, which is a Mexican vodka. And we’d sit around a campfire
at night and the three of us would have our little
touch of vodka, and everybody else
would want some and we wouldn’t
let them have any. So we went through all
of our training program. So when my flight comes along,
we’re trying to figure out, how do I get a bottle
of vodka on your flight? So we tried everything, we
even tried to freeze dry it. You know what happens
when you freeze dry vodka? Gone, there’s nothing left,
the first thing that boils off is the vodka. And what you have
left is just water. So that didn’t work, so anyway
these are the kind of things, these are the fun things
that keep you going, OK. Like I said earlier, you’ve
got to have a sense of humor, because if you don’t, if you
don’t maintain a sense of humor through all this training,
which is long and endless– I spent 70 hours a
week for three years training for my flight– all the way through. That’s what it takes. And you’ve got to stay
awake when you really want to go to sleep. Sorry, I hope that
answered your question. So building off the
topic of training, and talking about, given
your extensive training in both geology and
also the field trips, you, the astronauts, must
have had a pretty good idea on what the moon looked like. So I’m curious about what was
the most unexpected thing when you actually saw the real life
visualization of the moon? Most unexpected
thing that I saw? I’d have to say the universe. Most wonderful thing
I saw was the Earth, and I saw that come up over
the moon’s horizon 75 times. And I always got to a window
and looked at the Earth. But the most awesome
thing and the thing that really, really
got my imagination was looking at the
universe out there. That is so unbelievable,
and then you begin to understand what it’s
all about, and where we are, and what we’re part of, and that
there’s so much more out there. That’s what’s mind blowing. I can understand the
Earth and the moon, the moon being in
orbit around the Earth, and the Earth being in
orbit around the sun, right. Hey, that’s pretty
small potatoes. When you look at the rest
of the universe out there, it just blows your mind. From over the far side looking
at where there is neither the sun nor the earth it’s Hi, thank you for
coming here today. Looking ahead to the
future, both of you have a lot of experience
either being a CMP or training CMPs during the Apollo program
to identify surface features. But looking ahead to Mars,
to what we want to do there, we have different
assets around Mars than we do around the moon. We have orbiters with
high definition imaging, we also have an atmosphere that
could pose some visualization problems. And you said before
we don’t want to do things like
Apollo, so what would you change in the training
of someone like a pilot, to sort of do that same sort of
job that we had to do in Apollo but for Mars, considering
the different features and different assets
we have there? Maybe I misquoted a little bit. The only thing I would change
would be the machinery. What we do when we
get to Mars, we’re going to have to do
what we did at the moon. I think it’s going to be
the same kind of thing. We’re going to be looking
for the same kinds of things, maybe a little different things
on Mars, because there might be some water, might
be some other minerals, that kind of thing. OK, so we’re going to be looking
for specific things on Mars, but the crew’s going
to be the same. I guess my concern or dismay is
how we’re going to get there. Because I don’t
think that’s right, but I’m pretty
outspoken about that. I actually took a program
to NASA headquarters and presented them
with a re-entry vehicle that had an L/D of 1.75. And they turned it down– why? Because they had built Apollo,
and they knew how to do that. That’s nonsense,
there’s no creativity. You’ve got to have a
paradigm shift out there, you’ve got to be brave
enough to make big decisions and take a big risk, because
if you don’t do that, you’re not going
to get anywhere. That’s my feel. Well I’m sold on going
to Mars, but how do you think we can
kind of convince the public or the government
to spend that kind of money to get to Mars? I feel like there’s
definitely a perception that public interest in
space waned after Apollo, and it’s just never come
back in the same way. Well, to be very blunt, I
don’t think I’d do anything. Except, I think I’d talk to
some of my Russian buddies– or Chinese– and let’s start
talking about a program to go to Mars. And that they’re going to do
it in the next five years. And then if we don’t get on the
ball, they’re going to beat us. And that kind of information
takes care of itself. I wouldn’t have to market
going to Mars at all. I don’t know, I don’t even know
that that’s the right approach, but that’s what
got us to the moon. And so maybe that’s
the kind of thing that we need to get us
to Mars, I don’t know. And this time, it’ll
be the Chinese. Go ahead. Hi sir. Very honored to be in
your presence today. Did this extraordinary
trip change your vision about humanity, and
how did it change, if it changed anything, your
vision about human beings when you came back? Did it change anything
in your personal life? How did it change your
life your view of humanity My view of humanity. Humanity needs to
start thinking more about itself and its survival. We’ve got too many
things going on. We’ve got too many people that
like to wipe out other people. We’ve got too much dissension
and too much hatred. We’re not going to survive
as a human race for five billion years, until the sun
burns out, if we don’t take care of some of these problems. So, yeah, that’s kind of
what you come back with, is that all this stuff
is so stupid, and silly, and destructive. We’re not going to
advance unless we can get beyond that somehow,
and I don’t know how to do that. But these are some of the ideas
that you pick up on the way. Somehow we’ve got to solve some
of these problems we’ve got, or we’re never going to
get to 5 billion years. We’re going to have World
War Z all over again. Has anybody seen World War Z? Hi, thanks so much
for being here. So you mentioned looking
at humanity’s survival over time getting
to learn about– Closer to the mic. –taking care of
humanity and our planet, and you also mentioned
how incredible it was to see the Earth from the moon. So a lot has been said about
how the Apollo missions kind of coincided with a lot of the
environmental initiatives going on in the 1970s, and
I wonder how much you think, or how much of an effect
the Apollo missions had on conservation, and how we look
at taking care of our planet and treating each other? The impact on environmentalism. I’m not sure. Can I say something first? During the ’60s, there was
this incredible feeling of the United States
of America’s position in the world. And within NASA,
myself and the guys that were working in my
day, most of the NASA people were only in their mid-20s. And the question
at the time was, are we going to let the Soviet
Union, or the Soviets, beat us? And when you discussed
with some other person during the planning for
the mission or something, and you needed
information, and you would talk to the other guys
that say, go ahead goddammit. Go do it, and do it
right, and do it fast. You want the Ruskis to beat us? And this is kind of the
feeling that was permeated during this whole
time, that we are going to send a man to the moon, bring
him back safely to the Earth, within this decade. So it was a statement from
President Kennedy that kind of built up the national
courage, and then precipitated that incredible
feeling of solidarity within the NASA group,
particularly people like you guys sitting right
here, this was just like you. Faces like that, the
ones that did it. The astronauts were a
little older than you guys, but the ones that ran– A lot older. But the ones that really ran
the whole machine, and the guys that fixed the Apollo 11, the
problems with Apollo 11 and– Steve bales was an MIT
graduate at 26 years old. All of these guys
were that kind, and they were all
pumped up by the fact that we are going to do
it, and we are the best, and we’re going
to show the world. And they did. So what we really need now
is not to lie down and say, well, somebody will
do it or something. No, you need to reinvigorate
yourself with this feeling, and this might require
some leader of ours– not the present one–
but some leader of the US to pull all the people around
together for an objective, to do something super fantastic,
including a space mission to Mars. Or to anything else, it
doesn’t really matter. But it matters that we can
utilize all of the energy, and understanding,
and the vision, and so on of the young
generation that’s right here. You know what the average
age in Mission Control was when I flew? 26. Apollo 11, the guy who made the
decision that the error signal they got, don’t worry about
it keep going, was 22. You folks in this room,
man, you’re right there. We need you people. And it’s up to you,
all the future’s– We need young people who
are thoughtful people, who will do the right thing
at the right time, and who are not afraid
of making decisions. Don’t be afraid of
making decisions, even if they’re wrong. Compete with the best. That’s right. Okay, we’ll do
one more question. Yeah, one more. Hi, so thank you
so much for coming. My question is about the
role of doctors and medicine during your mission. Your book had a couple
of funny stories– [INTERPOSING VOICES] Oh god we better have another– [INTERPOSING VOICES] No, go ahead. Yeah, so you had a
couple of funny stories, and obviously showing the
mistrust between the astronauts and the doctors, and
them not letting you know about why you had to take
sleeping pills when you really didn’t want to. You had a couple
of funny stories so, is this stemming
from maybe test pilots from back in the day
being afraid of getting their wings taken away, or is
there some other reason, or– OK, backing up one step. As a pilot in the Air Force,
I had a flight surgeon. He was there, right on base. And his job was to
keep me healthy, and if I had something wrong
with me that would prevent me from flying, he was to write
out a little thing that says you’re grounded. I get to Houston, and I’ve got
a flight surgeon that’s exactly like that, his job is to– in fact, the flight
surgeon, if you’ve ever seen a television show called
MASH, which is in Korea. My flight surgeon
was one of the guys that that MASH was made
from, off the Korean War. And his job was to
keep me healthy, and if I got something
that I couldn’t fly, then he would take
me off flight tests. We had another brand of
doctors called mission doctors. Their job was to
find experiments that they could do
on us in flight, so that they would find
out more and more and more about the human
physiology in flight. These were the
guys we avoided, we did not trust, we’d
have nothing to do with, because they looked
at us as Guinea pigs. Now this is kind
of a serious one. On my flight, those
mission doctors wanted to catheterize
one of us in flight, because they wanted to look
inside the heart of somebody in space. Oh my god, you don’t
really mean that, do you? Yeah we do. No way, you cannot
put a catheter in me. We won’t allow it. Well it’s perfectly safe,
we said, we don’t care. It’s not something
we think is safe. Let us prove it to you and then
you can make your decision, you know the story Jeff? So they get one of
their flight surgeons and they catheterized him. They put him on a
bicycle ergometer, which is what we were
using back in the day. He started pumping and
pumping, and a little friction, and pumping harder, and a little
friction, and pumping harder. Five minutes into the protocol
he had a massive heart attack. You cannot do that to the human
body, I don’t care who you are. You can’t put something
foreign into the heart, and stress it, and expect
that person to stay alive, you can’t do it. So yeah, we have our problem
with doctors, absolutely. I don’t anymore, because
I’m not flying, but anyway. No, but– It’s probably worth pointing
out that Shannon Lucid actually did that on a shuttle flight. Did she? Yeah, and the complete asset– [INTERPOSING VOICES] Well I’m glad it
was her and not me. [INAUDIBLE] I think that’s a very
dangerous procedure– protocol. And Shannon came from the flight
very thin and kind of dazed. Well we need to wrap up,
let’s give our guests a round of applause. [APPLAUSE] Thank you very much, thank you. You’re a good bunch. Thank you for sitting
through all this. Thank you.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Was Al Worden aware while on the way back from the moon that David Scott broke his Omega Speedmaster Hazelite crystal after his second EVA and had to wear his Bulova Chronometer on the third EVA?

  2. I went to FIT for two years from 70-72 close to the Cape in Melbourne FL. All the flight instructors had Corvettes. It was the "manly" thing to have, like an Omega Speedmaster.

  3. I thought the reason the same face of the moon towards the Earth was due to "tidal locking". The moon rotates at the same rate as the Earth. The moon actually rotates but we only see the same side due to the syntonization of the moon's rotation with the Earth's. Yes, No?
    BTW, our moon is the largest moon in our solar system relative to its parent planet. Also, by coincidence, our moon is the only moon in our solar system where it is just the right distance and just the right size to make a perfect solar eclipse. Source: "Pulp Physics" by Dr. Richard Berendzen

  4. A robot probably would screw up solving the problem of globs of water or tomato soup in microgravity. Chances are however, a robot will never have to deal with a broken spigot for potable water or hot soup on the loose, 'cuz, you know, ROBOTS: aka those things that don't need to eat, drink or breathe.

  5. Fascinating talk..Worden got a little confused on lunar origins hypotheses though. Moon coming out of Earth was an idea from George Darwin in the 1870s, the fission hyoothesis. He thought it had formed the Pacific Basin because there was no idea yet about continental drift. Currently, ideas about origin of the moon highlight impacts, with debate about whether it was a giant impact or whether the newer multiple small impact hypothesis fits better.

  6. Amusing story telling, cant say if true or not, open to some landing (below the "VABs"), was it thee Moon sphere or disk, or was it a dark orb we cannot see that does thee amazing perfect fit to eclipsing the Moon? O there 'Truths protective layers' in all this business. I really dont get how these rockets that push on themselves… in vacuum land can control position, as of flying around backwords at fast diminishing speed around.

    El-Baz had Masonic links, and his father was an expert in ancient Egyptian
    rituals. Many Masonic lodges still used elements of these rituals in
    modern times. When those with an eagle eye on such things studied the
    details of El-Baz’s work retrospectively, they began to pick up on what
    they believed were connections to such rituals “hidden in plain sight”
    within the timings and coordinates of the mission.
    Given how many such lodges have their roots in ancient Egyptian secret
    societies—and how many high-level NASA officials have such Masonic
    connections—it is claimed by some that the end goal of the Apollo 11
    mission was to perform an ancient ritual in an attempt to “open
    communication” with a deity from the “beginning of time.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *