SUMMER 2019 | INNOVATION & TECH TODAY 65
tech
zone NASAThat was the feeling — we are going, so we
damn well better be ready.”
Innovation & Tech Today: You started
working with TRW, then you were assigned
to NASA for the Apollo space program. Then
the Apollo 1 launch pad fire happened. How
did we get from a disaster that would’ve shut
down the program for years if it happened
now, to lunar orbit in less than two years?
Poppy Northcutt: Apollo 8 was accelerated;
we first heard rumors of it in the summer of
- This was before Apollo 7 even launched,
an earth-orbit mission, our first since the Apollo
1 fire. We hadn’t even proven we could launch
an Apollo capsule with three men into earth
orbit – let alone the moon. So, the rumors were
initially laughable to me. We were considered a
critical program – if you do go to the moon, you
want to come back – and we weren’t ready. We
weren’t tested.
In August [1968], they made it official: We’re
going to fly Apollo 8 in December. We had
tremendous pressure. We had to finish the
testing. Plus, the retrofire officers at NASA had
never done return-to-earth maneuvers. It’s a
whole different game to come back from the
moon, as opposed to returning to earth from
our own orbit.
Then one day, someone came to me and said,
“You’re going to move over and help out in
Mission Control.” I just thought, “Wow!” I was
the only woman there, and what a time — to be
part of the first mission to try to go to the Moon.
I&T Today: What was the feeling in Mission
Control when Apollo 8 astronauts Frank
Borman, Bill Anders, and Jim Lovell flew to
the moon in December 1968?
PN: Exhilirating. Stressful. Really stressful at
times. We at TRW had created a rock-solid
return-to-earth trajectory program with IBM’s
computers, and it was well-tested. So we were
confident. However, the astronauts could not
configure their own return on board, in case
something went wrong. It all had to be read up
to them. Apollo 8 was particularly grueling,
because every time they lost contact on the
other side [of the moon], when they came into
radio range again, they’d have to give guidance
data to Mission Control, then we’d have to give
them a return trajectory for the next time they
were behind the moon — or, if there was a
problem, abort the mission immediately and get
them right home. We also had to project a
second and third orbit ahead, because they had
no on-board capacity.
The most stressful time was that first loss of
communication. They were going to do a big
orbital maneuver they had never done before, a
lunar orbit insertion, with no communication
— on the back side of the moon. As they came
back around that first time, there was a big clock
in Mission Control — the countdown to radio
acquisition. We didn’t hear anything. They were
late. They weren’t out on time. You could hear
the CapCom calling out to them. No one was
breathing, not a breath being taken in that place.
Then they finally answered.
The reason they were late was because there
were landmass concentrations on the moon
– mountains – that had never been mapped, so
their orbit was a little disturbed. That was the
most nerve-wracking thing. If they had over-
burned or under-burned — either one — we
might have to go into an emergency situation.
I&T Today: Give us a sense of how precise
your calculations and their execution had to be.
PN: Well, when I started, there were still
engineers walking around with slide rules, doing
open mental calculations and desk calculations.
We had computers, but the real intensity of
computers was just coming into being. And we
needed all we could get. That computer
development — that first use of what we call
‘big data’ today — got us to the moon and back.
You could not come back to earth from the
moon without high-speed computers. The
precision was so high, and the distances so great,
that a tiny error when it’s time to come back to
earth — a millimeter off, a hundredth of a
millimeter — meant you could miss earth re-
entry entirely. If you’re orbiting the earth, and
you slow down the vehicle, eventually, you will
come back to earth. Maybe not through the re-
entry corridor you want, the place you want, or
even alive, but you will come back at some
point... You can’t say that about coming back
from the moon.
I&T Today: You also worked to bring the
astronauts home from the Apollo 13 service
module explosion. From your perspective,what was the definition of a successful
mission?
PN: I considered it a successful mission when
we brought our boys back alive. So did everyone
else at NASA. Did I have thoughts about us
losing people in space? Of course. We all did.
Especially on Apollo 13. To have this explosion
on the way out, on a non free-return
trajectory...
I&T Today: Which is?
PN: A free return means the spacecraft will
automatically fly around the back of the moon
and return to earth on a computer program.
Apollo 13 was not on that trajectory; it was the
first mission we did that was non-free return, to
give the astronauts options in case something
went wrong on either our end or theirs. So they
were a little out of the (earth re-entry) angle.
The maneuver they did, with a ruined
spacecraft, put them on free return. We did the
free return to get them back here. We didn’t
know if they would be dead or alive, but we had
to get them home to find out what the hell
happened.
I&T Today: How do you view the Apollo 13
mission today?
PN: Some people saw that as a mission failure.
I saw it as a mission success. To me, the most
successful mission is when they get back alive. It
also showed we could recover from something
horrible in space, and bring our boys back alive.
That was an immense achievement.
I&T Today: It’s now 50 years later, we’re
celebrating the historic achievement of
Apollo 11 and the Apollo space program, and
you’re telling the story again. What do you
remember most about the work atmosphere,
the sense of what you were trying to achieve?
PN: We felt everything you feel when you’re
doing something that has potential earth-
shattering consequences — pride, purpose, a
sense of urgency, the sense of something bigger
than ourselves. All of those things. Think about
it: my job was important, yes, but I had one of
400,000 important jobs. They all had to come
together. So I’d think that everyone alive out of
those 400,000 space program workers is feeling
a lot of pride right now. We had a saying: Failure
is impossible. I’d love to see more of that sense
in the way we work today. Q