Help with American expression

[Kiwi]

On the commentary track that comes with the DVD of the movie "For All Mankind", Gene Cernan uses an expression I've never heard before. It sounds like "not on a bet", but if it is, I don't know what it means. Would appreciate any help. The text follows:

0:36:34 Gene Cernan: But, you know, people think that we had a poison needle or a pill or something to take on the surface of the moon and they really want to know — we didn't, by the way — they really want to know what we would have done had we not been able to get off the lunar surface. And, you know, I really don't know what I would have done, and thank God I don't have to worry about that now. I didn't go to the moon not to come back, I didn't go to the moon to be a martyr. We sort of legislated out the possibility that that would happen. We were so involved in training for realistic emergencies that we didn't have time to worry too much about the things that we planned not to happen. Now, having said that, we knew we were vulnerable to a whole host of unknown problems, a la Apollo 13. On the other hand, every conceivable emergency we could think and plan for, we were prepared for, and we almost dared something to fail because as I say, that arrogance, if you will, that you had to have to get you there, would take over and you said, "I know I can handle any kind of emergency and any kind of problem that occurs." 0:37:47 [Continued below]


0:37:50 Chapter 9: "This is a really rugged planet"

0:37:50 Gene Cernan: Did you think Alan Shepard would not have continued his descent and landed on the moon just because he lost the landing radar? Not on a bet, not on a bet. And do you think I'm going back to the moon, after having been close on Apollo 10 and Apollo 17, and I'm not going to risk my neck, but as long as I'm in control, we were going to land. It was going to be our day, if you will. And it was just a feeling that prevailed. 0:38:19

[Tanalia]

Same basic idea as not for a million bucks or not for all the tea in China -- it would take something extraordinary to change his mind.

[Bob B.]

Yep, "not on a bet" is probably what he's saying. It means that Alan Shepard wouldn't have continued the descent even if he had placed a bet (wager) on it. In other words, Shepard would have forfeited the wager rather than continue.

[Count Zero]

I interpreted very differently. I interpreted his anwer as qualifying Gene's opinion rather than Alan's commitment to proceed. To me he's not saying, "there's no way in hell he would have gone for it." He's saying "he might well have, but I do not feel confident enough about that opinion to bet money on it." In other words, instead of being a firm "no" it's a very weak "maybe".

In the context of the preceding paragraph, he seems to be saying, "Do I think Alan would've gone for it? It would've been the bold choice, and Alan was a bold guy; but speaking as a fellow test pilot, we weren't going to risk everything for a landing. Our training included deciding when to abort."

[Tanalia]

My reading on it was pretty much the opposite, more like:

Did you think Alan Shepard would have aborted just because the altitude would have to be judged visually or the autopilot couldn't manage the landing? No way. ... and I'm not suicidal, but as long as we've gone to all this trouble and we still have reasonable control, we're going for it.

He would not have given up the goal (a reasonably safe landing) for a simple material/monetary reward (such as winning a bet); only something threatening their lives would change the plans.

[Data Cable]

I agree with tanalia. It's a double-negative, which is throwing a few of you off. "Not on a bet" addresses the clause "would not have continued," therefore he's saying there's a strong degree of certainty that Shepard would not not have continued. The "not"s cancel out.

[Kiwi]

Thanks, guys. I've always liked hearing Gene Cernan because he is very eloquent and interesting, but this time the double negative and the term I'd never heard threw me and I couldn't understand what the second paragraph really meant.

Also found I'd got part of it wrong. It should read:
And do you think I'm going back to the moon, after having been close on Apollo 10, on Apollo 17, and I'm not going to risk my neck, but as long as I'm in control, we were going to land.

The change to "Apollo 10, on Apollo 17" from "Apollo 10 and Apollo 17" makes more sense. The sentence structure of spoken words is often very different to good writing. We understand okay when we hear it, but it can be confusing when transcribed.

[bazbear]

From the context of Gene's comments, as well as recalling other things I've heard him say in interviews, I'm pretty sure he meant, no, he didn't think a "little" problem like the landing radar going out would discourage a guy like Sheppard (or himself). Those were the sort of things he had trained for, and hence he felt he was prepared to deal with them in order to complete the mission.

[bazbear]

kiwi said:

Thanks, guys. I've always liked hearing Gene Cernan because he is very eloquent and interesting, but this time the double negative and the term I'd never heard threw me and I couldn't understand what the second paragraph really meant.

I agree, but everything I've heard him say about his philosophy leads me to believe he was willing to land by the "seat of his pants" if he felt the risk was reasonable.

[iamspartacus]

In Neal Thompson’s biography of Shepard (Light This Candle) he writes the following:

“We’re aware of the ground rules, Huston,” Shepard snapped. But that didn’t mean Huston could stop him from violating those rules. Just three miles above the surface, Shepard wasn’t about to turn back now, and he told Mitchell about his plan: “If the radar doesn’t kick in, we’re going to fly her down”

Shepard died in 98 and the book was written in 2004 so who's to say but it’s a good story.