It shows the value of giving very smart individuals a well-defined goal and uninterrupted time to work on it. It's a good case study in creative productivity.
It is a extremely well defined goal, under strict constraints (but a lot of liberty otherwise - for example, using the flight plan cover) and under a lot of pressure.
You can have immense bursts of productivity this way, but it also wears you out a lot.
Possibly, but I assume the astronauts would have been the judge of that if it did happen. Remember they were also very constrained on how much duct tape they had, so using a spare may have been more efficient than using more tape.
Exactly. Even if they had a hundred rolls, it would still have been good practice to be frugal with it. They run into similar things on the ISS: everything is limited except for vacuum. Being efficient and careful with resources is extremely important in those environments;
On my first day of engineering school we were given this problem and similar materials to work with.
Pretty much the best possible "real world" exercise that focuses on limited materials, time, and most importantly, simplicity of design and manufacture.
The hack is awesome, but to me the real lesson is the importance of modularity. If North American Aviation and Grumman had standardized on the same part the hack would have been moot. Just take the part from the LEM and stick it in the CSM. End of story.
I fully comprehend the tradeoff here though, particularly when it comes to tight deadlines and weight tolerances. The CO2 scrubber in the CSM didn't need to be as beefy as the one in the LEM, and the two air filtration systems were designed by different companies where coordination would have been a bitch.
It's the classic software engineering trade off, isn't it? Add more dependencies or DIY. I wonder how the ISS deals with this in the US vs Russian parts of the station?
I have worked a bit on things related to the ISS. From what I learnt, it is basically two space stations stuck together with an adapter. The smaller Russian part was launched first and is self-contained, basically a MIR 2. The US/international part was then added piece by piece, with each part having a specialized function.
Visiting Russian spacecraft can only dock on the Russian side and the Space Shuttle only on the US side, unless it brought an adapter.
I'm sure there were still many compatibility issues. For example the European ATV docks on the Russian side.
Totally fascinating subject. It wasn't clear to me if Dragon 2 is going to use the APAS-95 connector (what the Shuttle used), or the newer NDS connector.
It also made me think.. was there some kind of adapter used for Apollo missions after Apollo 13 for the CO2 scrubbers? Or was the hack the "official way" of getting around problem?
> Totally fascinating subject. It wasn't clear to me if Dragon 2 is going to use the APAS-95 connector (what the Shuttle used), or the newer NDS connector.
Dragon 2 will use a newer connector, scheduled to go up on one of the future Dragon missions, replacing the current APAS-95 connector. A bit sad to see it go. :(
>'It seems amazing to me that he looks so calm and cool when they were actually being poisoned by their own CO2 and without knowing if they were going to make it alive to Earth.'
Though our problems aren't close to same order of magnitude - keeping calm under pressure is something I feel is rare and under-appreciated in technology.
More than once I've seen a person start shaking so bad they couldn't type or slot in a replacement module while working a serious outage.
Amusingly, I've also had a new manager flip-out and actually interfere with my triage efforts because I 'didn't look like I was taking the problem seriously' (read: calm).
I wonder what sort of techniques could be adapted from elsewhere to teach the tech engineers of the world how to hold it together?
Well, the three astronauts were selected from a pool of test pilots, itself a pretty highly selected group. You might have a few problems widening all that out to a larger population.
Looking at the astronaut training, its procedures, procedures, knowledge of all the systems and practice on ground simulations.
Does anyone run simulations? You know a small network that simulates various disasters and lets your systems admin crew work through e.g. triage
I highly recommend reading Chris Hadfield's book "An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth". He talks a lot about remaining calm under pressure, and how astronauts train to burn that mentality in.
I think the biggest factor to overcome would be confidence. To remain calm, you must be confident in both your abilities and those of the people you are trusting. If you have this confidence, then there is no reason not to be calm, as you know you will work through the situation.
Working as a sysadmin, I was once pulled in to an executives office and got a very stern talking-to for appearing too calm during a major outage. Our phone system upgrade was taking 4x the planned time to complete, but we had the situation under control and were finishing as quickly as possible. It sucked and was stressful, but being worked up about it served no purpose. I think I laughed about it at the time, but he did not find that endearing.
Same here as a developer. The server was down. The clients' sites were unreachable. I was busy trying to figure out what happened instead of panicking and was told I need to be more engaged because I seemed to have no sense of the scale of the problem and how were they supposed to know otherwise if I wasn't visibly upset?
I said I was looking into it and showed them the log files. I was specifically told that if I wasn't visibly panicking they didn't believe I was engaged in solving the problem.
This is the same agency that accused me of doing freelance on the side because they saw me with a C# book and there was no reason for me to be learning another programming language if I wasn't doing work on the side in violation of my contract.
Nearly every place I've worked I've had two divergent messages come my way. The first is usually that I'm really productive, positive member of the team, and this shows up in reviews, promotions, etc. The other is that I just don't look like I give a shit about anything we're doing. The truth is that I honestly don't get emotionally invested in any of it. I'm emotionally invested in my career and love new technology, enjoy learning, etc. But if the proverbial shit hits the fan then it's a minor nuisance because I'll probably be working late for the night or for the next few weeks depending on how big of a problem has arisen.
>'The truth is that I honestly don't get emotionally invested in any of it. I'm emotionally invested in my career and love new technology, enjoy learning, etc.'
I think there's a lot of wisdom in those sentences. Basically, invest in internal (personal) goals and see the external (workplace) ones served as a natural extension of that.
It's easy to reverse that and find yourself hamstrung or run ragged by bullshit which you don't necessarily have any control over.
Amusingly, I've also had a new manager flip-out and actually interfere with my triage efforts because I 'didn't look like I was taking the problem seriously' (read: calm).
The way I think about it would be to ask (in my head) whether the boss/CxO/freaker-outer gets seriously agitated while they're constructing an Excel spreadsheet? They're freaking out because they are being prevented from working (or they are concerned as a matter of business continuity and service levels), while the sysadmin is now, finally, "working." I mean, the SA is always working, but moments like this is what they're there for, so to expect them to be freaking out because their job needs to be done is just silly. It's their job to fix this stuff, let them do it. Turnabout would be to ask a manager every 2 hours whether they have their next meeting planned out yet. "When is the budget going to be done?"
Calmness is crucial for anyone in a triage situation. You have to be able to make correct decisions under pressure. In my experience most large outages are caused by a panicked response to a small outage.
Additionally it's important for many other reasons. If you seem outwardly anxious or worried it will magnify the fears of those depending on you. If the expert is worried, then people who depend on the expert will be hysterical.
That scene in the movie ("you have to make this, fit into this, using these") was a big aha moment for me, in realizing just how fundamentally hard space travel really was. I'm very glad to learn it wasn't movie-exaggerated.
>This is the mother of all hacks, the genius device that saved the Apollo XIII crew from dying in their emergency return to Earth,
Not to detract from the accomplishment; but I'm confident that the astronauts would have been able to figure this out by themselves if needed, and didn't do so because of the command/control nature of NASA missions.
The instructions could have been shortened to: Fit the Command Module scrubber filter to the Lunar Module's filter hole. Use tape and plastic to seal the rig for proper airflow.
I also wonder if there were other issues on-board that required their attention or otherwise diverted on-board brainpower.
Not to mention they had a limited amount of equipment on-board, so they basically had ONE CHANCE to get it right; no room for trial-and-error. There was a surplus of equipment on the ground, so they had more of a chance to make mistakes and get it right before directing the crew on-board.
So yes, they would have been able to figure it out if needed, but I think there are other reasons besides NASA's (infamous) bureaucracy.
>so they basically had ONE CHANCE to get it right; no room for trial-and-error.
That isn't necessarily so, but it is definitely prudent to optimize the use of their limited supplies. To be fair, I agree it's better that they had more people looking at the problem, and I agree that it was the right thing way to do it; but it isn't as though astronauts are chimps, or even that mere mortals are always unable to improvise non-standard solutions.
I skimmed the thread and it looks like at least two people made their own replicas. The most surprising thing to me is that you can get used Apollo lithium-hydroxide canisters just like those pictured on ebay!
38 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 85.9 ms ] threadIt is a extremely well defined goal, under strict constraints (but a lot of liberty otherwise - for example, using the flight plan cover) and under a lot of pressure.
You can have immense bursts of productivity this way, but it also wears you out a lot.
Pretty much the best possible "real world" exercise that focuses on limited materials, time, and most importantly, simplicity of design and manufacture.
McGyver didn't lie.
I fully comprehend the tradeoff here though, particularly when it comes to tight deadlines and weight tolerances. The CO2 scrubber in the CSM didn't need to be as beefy as the one in the LEM, and the two air filtration systems were designed by different companies where coordination would have been a bitch.
It's the classic software engineering trade off, isn't it? Add more dependencies or DIY. I wonder how the ISS deals with this in the US vs Russian parts of the station?
Visiting Russian spacecraft can only dock on the Russian side and the Space Shuttle only on the US side, unless it brought an adapter.
I'm sure there were still many compatibility issues. For example the European ATV docks on the Russian side.
Totally fascinating subject. It wasn't clear to me if Dragon 2 is going to use the APAS-95 connector (what the Shuttle used), or the newer NDS connector.
It also made me think.. was there some kind of adapter used for Apollo missions after Apollo 13 for the CO2 scrubbers? Or was the hack the "official way" of getting around problem?
Though our problems aren't close to same order of magnitude - keeping calm under pressure is something I feel is rare and under-appreciated in technology.
More than once I've seen a person start shaking so bad they couldn't type or slot in a replacement module while working a serious outage.
Amusingly, I've also had a new manager flip-out and actually interfere with my triage efforts because I 'didn't look like I was taking the problem seriously' (read: calm).
I wonder what sort of techniques could be adapted from elsewhere to teach the tech engineers of the world how to hold it together?
Looking at the astronaut training, its procedures, procedures, knowledge of all the systems and practice on ground simulations.
Does anyone run simulations? You know a small network that simulates various disasters and lets your systems admin crew work through e.g. triage
Beyond that, it's simply a great book.
There is a difference. It is frustrating to manage people who don't see the value in communicating properly. (Or maybe you had a clueless manager.)
This is the same agency that accused me of doing freelance on the side because they saw me with a C# book and there was no reason for me to be learning another programming language if I wasn't doing work on the side in violation of my contract.
>'The truth is that I honestly don't get emotionally invested in any of it. I'm emotionally invested in my career and love new technology, enjoy learning, etc.'
I think there's a lot of wisdom in those sentences. Basically, invest in internal (personal) goals and see the external (workplace) ones served as a natural extension of that.
It's easy to reverse that and find yourself hamstrung or run ragged by bullshit which you don't necessarily have any control over.
The way I think about it would be to ask (in my head) whether the boss/CxO/freaker-outer gets seriously agitated while they're constructing an Excel spreadsheet? They're freaking out because they are being prevented from working (or they are concerned as a matter of business continuity and service levels), while the sysadmin is now, finally, "working." I mean, the SA is always working, but moments like this is what they're there for, so to expect them to be freaking out because their job needs to be done is just silly. It's their job to fix this stuff, let them do it. Turnabout would be to ask a manager every 2 hours whether they have their next meeting planned out yet. "When is the budget going to be done?"
That said, I've also been in hands-shaking mode.
Additionally it's important for many other reasons. If you seem outwardly anxious or worried it will magnify the fears of those depending on you. If the expert is worried, then people who depend on the expert will be hysterical.
Not to detract from the accomplishment; but I'm confident that the astronauts would have been able to figure this out by themselves if needed, and didn't do so because of the command/control nature of NASA missions.
The instructions could have been shortened to: Fit the Command Module scrubber filter to the Lunar Module's filter hole. Use tape and plastic to seal the rig for proper airflow.
Not to mention they had a limited amount of equipment on-board, so they basically had ONE CHANCE to get it right; no room for trial-and-error. There was a surplus of equipment on the ground, so they had more of a chance to make mistakes and get it right before directing the crew on-board.
So yes, they would have been able to figure it out if needed, but I think there are other reasons besides NASA's (infamous) bureaucracy.
That isn't necessarily so, but it is definitely prudent to optimize the use of their limited supplies. To be fair, I agree it's better that they had more people looking at the problem, and I agree that it was the right thing way to do it; but it isn't as though astronauts are chimps, or even that mere mortals are always unable to improvise non-standard solutions.
http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=105500&s=b4fc00db6d1b...
I skimmed the thread and it looks like at least two people made their own replicas. The most surprising thing to me is that you can get used Apollo lithium-hydroxide canisters just like those pictured on ebay!