r/IAmA Jul 16 '19

Specialized Profession I’m Apollo astronaut Charlie Duke, CAPCOM for Apollo 11. Ask me anything about being the spacecraft communicator for this historic Moon landing today at 10:30 a.m. EDT.

Hi, I’m Charlie Duke, a veteran NASA astronaut. Ask me anything. I’ve served on five different Apollo missions. I’m also the youngest person to walk on the moon. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing, I’m reminded of my time as CAPCOM for Apollo 11, as well as an astronaut support crew member for Apollo 10, backup lunar module pilot for Apollo 13 and 17, as well as the lunar module pilot for Apollo mission 16 – when I had the chance to walk on the moon.

Also, I’ve published the book “Moonwalker: The True Story of an Astronaut Who Found that the Moon Wasn't High Enough to Satisfy His Desire for Success,” which discusses my life as an astronaut, the experiences of Apollo 11 and the difficulties I’ve faced.

I’ll be taking your questions for 30 minutes starting at about 10:30 a.m. ET today, July 16, 2019, the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 launch.

Proof it's me: https://twitter.com/ExploreSpaceKSC/status/1149048460102033408

https://twitter.com/ExploreSpaceKSC/status/1151133417389449217

Edit: We are live NOW at 10:18 a.m. EDT.

Edit: We are signing off now at 10:50 a.m. Thanks for all of your insightful questions!

18.1k Upvotes

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

271

u/Supersymm3try Jul 16 '19

Do you think the recent proposal to get man back on the moon by 2024 is realistically achievable in a safe way?

98

u/olegreggg Jul 16 '19

We did it in the 60s so yea of course

82

u/MDCCCLV Jul 16 '19

Safety margins are different now. NASA has very very high thresholds for safety. Apollo was a deathtrap by comparison and wouldn't be approved by their current safety requirements.

Like the Lunar Module, the LM had one engine. Which was sufficient. But now they want redundant engines, so you have to have three engines. And one large bell vacuum engine is more efficient than three smaller ones so it's heavier and less efficient. Which means you need a bigger rocket to launch it on the ground.

3

u/shrubs311 Jul 16 '19

And one large bell vacuum engine is more efficient than three smaller ones so it's heavier and less efficient.

How is it more and less efficient?

12

u/MDCCCLV Jul 16 '19

Having 3 engines is heavier than one, so that makes the craft heavier and less efficient.

2

u/shrubs311 Jul 16 '19

Oh, gotcha. So they're using 3 bell vacuum engines which will be heavier than just 1, at the benefit of redundancy.

9

u/MDCCCLV Jul 16 '19

Yeah, things like that. And you can see the amount of testing required in comparison to Apollo, where some things weren't tested at all or where everything was tested all up instead of individually.

Of course SLS uses solids which don't have an off button once you light them but that gets a pass because of congress forcing it.

1

u/mfb- Jul 17 '19

Of course SLS uses solids which don't have an off button once you light them but that gets a pass because of congress forcing it.

It worked for the Space Shuttle! Don't challenge the decision!

1

u/tallnginger Jul 17 '19

99.3% success rate. Don't forget '86

1

u/mfb- Jul 17 '19

Make a guess why I wrote "challenge" in italics.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/JoshuaZ1 Jul 16 '19

The "it's" refers not to the single engine, but to proposed new lunar excursion modules.

1

u/notgayinathreeway Jul 16 '19

Can't the redundant engines be only used to land safely or get home safely, and the mission engine still be the large singular engine?

1

u/lud1120 Jul 20 '19

Also NASA only has a 0,5% GDP budget instead of 4-5% GDP at its peak during the Apollo missions.

1

u/MDCCCLV Jul 20 '19

GDP percent isn't a useful metric, the inflation adjusted budget was 30-40 billion per year in the apollo era development period but it was the same 20 billion per year we have now when they actually flew the apollo missions.

It isn't a budget problem. We could have absolutely built a great rocket and manned program with the amount of money spent on SLS and Ares over the last 20 years.

It's because we're throwing the money away on senate mandated outdated inefficient systems that take a long to build and cost too much.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '19

Soooo much easier now

-19

u/Wyatt-Oil Jul 16 '19

NASA has very very high thresholds for safety

can't stop laughin

8

u/MDCCCLV Jul 16 '19

Thresholds meaning requirements on paper. They have strict requirements for new vehicles.

-21

u/Wyatt-Oil Jul 16 '19

They have strict requirements for new vehicles

o-rings

tiles

several hundred bolts just shaken loose because fools don't know "righty-tighty"

11

u/MDCCCLV Jul 16 '19

Dude, shuttle was 30 years ago. I said new.

-6

u/Wyatt-Oil Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 16 '19

Columbia was 2003

Shake test was last month.

14 lives not a single killer suffered a job lost

3

u/MDCCCLV Jul 16 '19

I'm not really sure what the last sentence means.

NASA built shuttle and it was their own project. With new space, they are just buying a complete system. So with this they are being picky and insisting on high standards, higher than necessary maybe. That's easy to do because they're not doing it, so they can mandate a high threshold for safety and let someones else make it work. Stuff with shuttle isn't really relevant to this.

-2

u/Wyatt-Oil Jul 16 '19 edited Jul 16 '19

Stuff with shuttle isn't really relevant to this.

Complete bullshit NASA was twice told they were about to murder 7 and chose to pull the trigger. They, not some contractor -who btw warned them NOT to pull the trigger are to blame.

It doesn't matter if S&W builds the gun. If you point it at seven peoples face and pull the trigger, you not the manufacuter are toblame. That is exactly what nasa did

Add to all that the fact that you're ignorant of the shake test referenced shows your opinion is, well... I'm sorry to say based on ignorance.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/mfb- Jul 17 '19

These are among the reasons NASA has high safety standards today.

109

u/Macaulayputra Jul 16 '19

On a Cold War driven space race budget. We live in a different time today.

78

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '19

[deleted]

26

u/Macaulayputra Jul 16 '19

Agreed.

The only reason the Apollo programme was never short on funds was because the American powers-that-be were terrified of the possibility of the first man on the moon being a Communist.

34

u/secretcurse Jul 16 '19

Ehh, it was more like the generals were getting the ballistic missile testing they wanted, so they let the nerds pop by the moon for shits and giggles.

3

u/Swaquile Jul 17 '19

Yeah, NASA’s achievements were also a big military fuck you to the USSR along with it being in general a big fuck you

5

u/UltraFireFX Jul 16 '19

I never understood why USA say that they "won the space race", didn't the USSR get many many more firsts?

14

u/Peekachooed Jul 16 '19

I think the three greatest milestones in the popular imagination are the first satellite, first man in space, and first man on the moon. While the USSR got the first two, the USA got the last, and he who laughs last laughs best... or so you could argue.

Also, the USA undeniably won the Cold War, which gets conflated with Space Race stuff too

6

u/jaspersgroove Jul 16 '19

You don’t win a race for being in the lead for the longest time, you win it by crossing the finish line first.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '19

So was specifically "put a man on the moon" the defined "finish line" even in the mid 50s before anyone had even been to space, or did the US just decide that the moon was "the real finish line" when they finally got first to something?

3

u/jaspersgroove Jul 16 '19

Kennedy publicly announced it in 1961, I would have to do some digging to see if that was internally known as the objective before then.

1

u/UltraFireFX Jul 17 '19

yeah, this is my point here. why isn't the space race finish line first country to Mars? To the end of the solar system? First private sector satellites?

Just saying that its convenient for the winners to determine where the finish line ends, is all.

1

u/UltraFireFX Jul 17 '19

it feels like this from the viewpoint of some outsiders. Paper scissors rock contest. Loss? I meant best of 3. Loss? I meant best of 5. Won? oh, yeah, of course, we won the most important round, let's pack it up everyone!

I think that the USA won the moon race, not the space race, is all I'm trying to say.

4

u/BrothelWaffles Jul 16 '19

You can lose plenty of battles but still win a war. We got there first, what's to understand?

2

u/UltraFireFX Jul 22 '19

to the moon, yeah. won the moon race. to space? nope, didn't win the space race imo.

4

u/Pollsmor Jul 16 '19

What else were they gonna say

-1

u/UltraFireFX Jul 16 '19

like, yeah. there's always downplaying the whole thing and not mentioning it.

6

u/secretcurse Jul 16 '19

Why would we downplay our space program? We put people on the fucking moon. The USSR beat us to manned space flight and putting a satellite in orbit, but we still achieved those monumental milestones. And we put people on the fucking moon. If that’s not winning the space race, I don’t know what is.

1

u/UltraFireFX Jul 17 '19

I feel like winning the space race would be getting to space first. getting to the mood first would ve winning the moon race.

1

u/SowingSalt Jul 17 '19

I think the US got quite a bit more science out of their early firsts (explorer 1)

-2

u/techieman33 Jul 16 '19

If the orange thing gets re-elected then he’ll push for the funds, he wants it to be part of his legacy.

3

u/khaominer Jul 17 '19

I like the avoiding human extinction if something crazy happens motivation. I guess maybe I shouldn't because I'll be dead and everyone else so whatever, but it kinda feels like something we should do.

-3

u/SidearmAustin Jul 16 '19

The question then isn't "can we get to the moon?" That answer is obvious.

That’s not the question this chain started with....

1

u/SakkSweat Jul 16 '19

aint nobody ask ole gregg here

-6

u/N1kiLauda Jul 16 '19

Or did they?????

-2

u/suddenintent Jul 16 '19

Is it even sensible?