Houston, we have a Spinoff

It was on this date, April 11, in 1970 that one of the most famous space flights in American history occurred.  Apollo 13, was launched from Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center.  Departing at the seemingly unlucky time of 13:13 CST (Mission Control time) the flight is known more for not being the third manned mission to land on the moon, but for its getting back to earth following an in-space explosion in the Service Module which occurred on April 13 (CST).  The Apollo 13 mission, popularized less by the book Lost Moon by former Milwaukee, Wisconsin resident and Apollo 13 Commander James Lovell, than by its spinoff movie—titled “Apollo 13”  starring Tom Hanks, and produced by the person who played the former Mayberry RFD character Opie, and Richie Cunningham in “Happy Days.”  Perhaps part of the attraction is that the flight did not have its share of luck, and to those who like to think in terms of fate, saw the number 13 as proving its worth.  However, in the end they were lucky.  They got back to earth safely, which was due not only the attention of the three souls in-flight, but to the improvisations and ability to work under pressure of the men on earth.

 

Signed copy of Lost Moon

 The landing to the moon was aborted following the explosion in the Service Module’s oxygen tanks.  This would have a rippling affect for the rest of their journey.  The fuel cell technology which combined hydrogen and oxygen to power the ship also produced the water supply that was to be used by the crew.  The crew would use the Lunar Module as a lifeboat, even though that module provided water for only two men for two days, not three men for four.  The battery power in the Command Module was all that would be available. The CM was shut down to preserve its battery power for re-entry.  Oxygen would not be a problem due to the amount available for pressurization for landing on the moon.  Besides water, which was strictly rationed, two other main issues were power and carbon monoxide build-up.  The LM took a different shape and size scrubber than what was in the CM, requiring an improvisation on earth.  Most all systems had to be powered down to preserve power.  This led to the abort computer on the LM being used to help the course around the moon and back to earth, rather than the primary LM computer.

Launch Pad at Cape Canaveral.  Photo from Oct. 1996

While it is fitting to recall a significant event in American history, the technology used at the time was in some respects very rudimentary, but in many others it has led to improved life on earth.  Particularly rudimentary was the computer technology, which at the time was in its infancy, and while it had the most complex hardware on earth at the time, such hardware would be rather laughable to those growing up but one generation between. For example, Intel’s highly recognized 8086 processor developed in 1979, only nine years after Apollo 13, was used in the 1981 IBM XT computer which had 4x the processing power, and much greater speed than the on-board Apollo guidance computers.   The Apollo Guidance Computer ran at a speed of 40KHz (.0004 GHz).  By comparison, the laptop on which this is being typed, runs at a speed of 3 GHz .  Using some of the most powerful computers of the day, five IBM 360/75 mainframe computers, each of which were 250x faster than the guidance computer, running all day to perform calculations for lift-off, orbit and system monitoring.  To show the computing power of today, it has been calculated that one Google search, yes, just one, will use more computing power than the Apollo missions did on the ground and in-flight.  I do not mean one Apollo mission, but all the Apollo missions which put Neil Armstrong and 11 other astronauts on the moon, and returned them safely to earth, and of course, the Apollo 13 mission.  As one commentator put it, one USB memory stick has more power than the guidance computer.  In the “Apollo 13” movie, Jim Lovell’s mother tells her granddaughters to not worry, because “if a washing machine could fly, my Jimmy could land it.”  A statement with some irony since some say that a washing machine today uses more computing power than that found in the CM.  I find it rather remarkable what they were able to achieve with a technology in its infancy.  But, what they lacked in hardware they made up in software innovations that allowed multiple operations to run at the same time.  Software development of the Apollo era, as basic as it was, was rather ingenious.  It would form the platforms for much of the software we see today. 

Spacesuit, Oct. 1996 photo

The spinoff did not end at computer technology, the microchips, and integrated circuits that arose due to the program.  Some technologies people associate with NASA, such as Tang, were not NASA inventions. Some NASA popularized, such as Velcro.  Other technologies NASA took and improved—battery operated tools, as an example.  But, there were inventions.  NASA invented the first adjustable smoke detector with sensitivity levels to prevent false alarms.  Likewise, moon boot material has altered athletic footware, when Al Gross, a NASA program engineer, used his expertise from the space program to improve athletic shoes, through use of material and design. Fire resistant materials, used for a more fire-resistant spacesuits, which advanced following the horrible 1967 fire in what is now termed Apollo 1, now give us better fire-fighting wear.   But, it also structural fabric, such as Houston’s Reliant Stadium roof.  We also see Quartz crystals used in clocks to keep more accurate time due to NASA.  Swimmers using the speed suits of today rely on NASA technology developed to reduce drag.

Command Module 

 Some innovations we see in the medical field.  One example would be programmable pacemakers.  Another is the ability to remove waste from dialysis fluid, using “sorbent” dialysis which gives the patient more freedom during treatment and uses less energy, was developed from NASA technology.  And, where would the medical world be today without CAT scans, MRI’s radiography and microscopy used to look in to the depth of the human body and detect what was undetectable?   These came about from a NASA technology to detect imperfections in space components.  But, it also goes to more simple instruments in common use, such as the digital ear thermometer. 

 

James Lovell book signing, Oct. 1996

There are many other technologies assisted by or directly from NASA and the program to land a man on the moon.  While Apollo 13 had some bad luck, it also had innovations on earth from which we still reap a benefit.  In this case, bad luck was overcome by improvisation and ingenuity on the part of humans in on earth and in-flight.  A bad incident is not necessarily a bad outcome, as they often can be used to produce a resilience that was not before known.  But, here is a thought to ponder: it took me about five Google searches to find information for this one blog post, and thus I used five times the amount of computing power used for the WHOLE Apollo program.  I am not sure if that is symbolic of how far we have come, or how much they were able to accomplish with so little.  I tend toward the latter.