Low Tech Ingenuity

[Ginnie]

Many HB claim that one of the reason Apollo couldn't have landed on the moon is that NASA didn't have technology advanced enough to do it: they seem to think that computers weren't good enough etc.

Can you think of any occasions where the astronauts had to employ low-tech solutions on their missions?
I know of at least two:

-On Apollo 13 they ran out of round LM air filters that remove carbon dioxide from the air. They used a flight plan cover, a sock, a plastic bag and duct tape to create an adapter for the square command module air filters.

-on Apollo 17 after the lunar rovers fender extension was torn off, the astronauts improvised and made a replacement with a folded map.

[pzkpfw]

How about using a pen to operate a broken switch?

(Text from discovery web site...)

Neil Armstrong, the first person to set foot the moon, and Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin Jr., his fellow astronaut, accidentally snapped off the switch of a circuit breaker, and found they could not take off without it.

Aldrin then jammed a ballpoint pen into the hole where the switch had been, allowing the astronauts' lunar module Eagle to leave the surface of the moon.



Would also be interesting to hear of low-tech solutions that were part of the plan, not fixes.

[Count Zero]

Well, I liked the lanyard that, when pulled, lowered the MESA.

Btw, it was actually a felt-tip pen. Buzz said he wasn't about to insert a metal ball-point into a breaker.

[Ginnie]

How about using a pen to operate a broken switch?
I forgot about that one.

Here's something from the Duct Tape Guys site:

Duct Tape Aids Shuttle Mission (August 2, 2005)
SPACE CENTER, Houston - Employing the kind of NASA ingenuity seen during Apollo 13, an astronaut prepped for an emergency repair job Wednesday on Discovery's exterior with forceps, scissors and a hacksaw fashioned out of a blade and a little duct tape.
Stephen Robinson's mission was to remove two short pieces of filler material that were sticking out of the shuttle's belly. NASA feared the material could lead to a repeat of the 2003 Columbia tragedy during Discovery's re-entry next week.
He could simply pull the stiff fabric out with gloved hands. If a gentle tug did not work, he was to pull a little harder with forceps. And if that didn't work, he was supposed to use a hacksaw put together in orbit with a deliberately bent blade, plastic ties, Velcro and the handyman's favorite all-purpose fix-it: duct tape.

here's a link to the Duct Tape Guys NASA page:
www.ducttapeguys.com/NASA/index.html

[Grand Lunar]

ginniegatrit said:

Many HB claim that one of the reason Apollo couldn't have landed on the moon is that NASA didn't have technology advanced enough to do it: they seem to think that computers weren't good enough etc.

I agree.

It problably is a reflection of non-engineering types, or the spoiled types that don't use computer #1, the human brain, enough.
Such people are the type that complain of engine trouble, when it's a simple matter of putting fuel in the tank. ;D

Closest low-tech I know of that hasn't been mentioned is the use of a sextant for navigation. Of course, that was a planned item.
Do we want unplanned ones? I know of a spatula-like device used on the end of the shuttle's robot arm to flip a switch on a sattilite that failed to reach orbit. It didn't work, but it was a good effort.

[scooter]

It was very early in the US rocketry program, bur a Viking 2 rocket had an engine failure (explosion) on engine start during a test firing. After realizing the oxygen tank was draining, threatening to collapse the integral tank and rocket structure, a marksman was called in to fire a shot into the collapsing tank to relieve the vaccuum. The situation stabilized, the tanks were drained, and the rocket was later flown successfully.
Gotta do what ya gotta do. A marksman's target was inconporated on later airframes, just in case.

Somrtimes, it's just something simple.

[HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk)]

pzkpfw said:

Would also be interesting to hear of low-tech solutions that were part of the plan, not fixes.

The Lunar Equipment Conveyor was pretty low tech, but did its job more than adequately.

[Kiwi]

The most obvious planned, highly-essential and low-tech operation during Apollo missions was the Capcom regularly reading up long lists of figures and words which were copied down on paper by the astronauts then read back for verification.

For example:
1:34:55 Capcom: Apollo 11, this is Houston. I am ready with your TLI-plus-90-minute abort Pad.
1:35:00 Armstrong: Roger. Apollo 11 is ready to copy TLI plus 90.
1:35:03 Collins: Go.
1:35:05 Capcom: Roger. TLI plus 90, SPS G&N: 63481, minus 153, plus 132; CETI 004:10:25.38; Noun 81, minus 04761, plus 00001, plus 53361; roll 180 193 000; HA is NA; plus 00203 53573 633 53349, sextant star 33 1578 122. The boresight star is not available. Latitude minus 0252, minus 02580 11887 34345 016 03 50. GDC align Vega and Deneb. Roll 071 291 341. No ullage, undocked. I have your P37 for TLI plus 5 hours. Over.
1:37:08 Collins: Go ahead, TLI plus 5.
1:37:11 Capcom: Roger. P37 format, TLI plus 5: 00744 6485, minus 165, 02506. Read back. Over.
1:37:31 Collins: Roger. TLI plus 90, SPS G&N: 63481, minus 153, plus 132, 004:10:25.38, minus 04761, plus 00001, plus 53361, 180 193 000, not applicable, plus 00203 53573 633 53349, 33 1578 122, not available, minus 0252, minus 02580 11887 34345 016 03 50. Vega and Deneb, 071 291 341. No ullage, undocked. P37, TLI plus 5: 00744 6485, minus 165 02506. Over.
1:39:04 Capcom: Apollo 11, this is Houston. Readback correct...


The reason for this was security. If communications broke down completely, that piece of paper could get the astronauts back home. It is explained in the Apollo 15 Flight Journal:

[Within their high-tech environment, it may seem somewhat strange for the crew to be given large quantities of mostly numerical information in such a low-tech fashion. At first glance it may appear easier to simply have the data uplinked to them and stored in the computer. However, the computer was not designed as a repository of data in the sense that we have come to think of computers thirty years after Apollo. It functions more like a real-time controller, albeit a very sophisticated one, and not completely unlike the embedded controller chips found in a VCR or microwave oven. The abort PADs are, in essence, a 'checklist' of items that the crew have to sequence through (Program 30 can be quite long), and although there are minimum keystroke ("minkey") options, there was never a 'scripting capability' that would automatically execute a program using stored responses. Additionally, there are verbal comments included in the PADs which cannot be entered into the computer.]

[In light of later, post-Apollo computer systems, it was an incredible feat to get the programming into the CM computer's 32Kwords of storage; most of this being hardwired into rope core memory. There was only 2Kwords (4K bytes) of erasable storage in the machine, and this was used to the maximum. During the Apollo 11 landings, using the very similar LM computer, the resource that the 1201/1202 alarms were complaining about was the lack of erasable memory.]

[The crucial importance of the data requires that the crew write it down and have 'hard-copy' available to them in case of the very systems failure that might invoke such an abort. Say, for instance, that the guidance computer fails. Having the abort PADs stored electronically would make them inaccessible. Or, say an oxygen tank blows on the way to the Moon, and you have to power down the entire Command Module, computer and all à la Apollo 13. It's tough to beat having a piece of paper with all the vital information for getting home written on it.]

[It's important to realize that although the computer is a critical part of the spacecraft, it isn't an absolute requirement for its operation. Early in the development of the computer, there were even serious doubts that it would remain functional for the entire mission! As a result, Apollo was designed to be flown without an operational computer. All the tasks that it normally manages could be done manually. (Making attitude adjustments, firing the engine, etc.) An essential design philosophy: Always try to have survivable options even when a critical piece of equipment fails.]

[Scott, from 1998 correspondence - "The design philosophy was even more precise than 'survivable' options - survivable' being exactly what? The back-up system was usually of a completely different design, never two - prime and backup - of the same 'kind.' This was one of the major factors in 'What Made Apollo a Success?' Operating, maintaining, and learning two completely different systems for one purpose was far more difficult and costly than having two identical systems for redundancy - but the concept proved its worth, time and again."]

Edited to emphasise a point above for hoax-believers:
It's important to realize that although the computer is a critical part of the spacecraft, it isn't an absolute requirement for its operation... Apollo was designed to be flown without an operational computer. All the tasks that it normally manages could be done manually. (Making attitude adjustments, firing the engine, etc.)

[gwiz]

grandlunar1980 said:

Do we want unplanned ones? I know of a spatula-like device used on the end of the shuttle's robot arm to flip a switch on a sattilite that failed to reach orbit. It didn't work, but it was a good effort.

STS 51D. The device was made by cutting up the plastic cover of a flight-plan document. Several other satellite rescue missions involved man-handling the satellites, usually after capture hardware failed to work.

[Count Zero]

Heh. In the early '90s when the robot arm failed to capture, the shuttle crew did a 3-man EVA where they grabbed the satellite with their hands. The headline in that afternoon's newspaper where I lived (the Honolulu Star Bulletin) was "Star-Trekkers Cling On".