For anyone who liked this, I highly suggest you take a look at the CuriousMarc youtube channel, where he chronicles lots of efforts to preserve and understand several parts of the Apollo AGC, with a team of really technically competent and passionate collaborators.

One of the more interesting things they have been working on, is a potential re-interpretation of the infamous 1202 alarm. It is, as of current writing, popularly described as something related to nonsensical readings of a sensor which could (and were) safely ignored in the actual moon landing. However, if I remember correctly, some of their investigation revealed that actually there were many conditions which would cause that error to have been extremely critical and would've likely doomed the astronauts. It is super fascinating.

▲

deepsun 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And that's why it's harder (or easier?) to make the same landing again -- we taking way less chances. Today we know of way more failure modes than back then.

▲

kevin_thibedeau 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They sent people up in a tin can with the bare minimum computational power to manage navigation and control sequencing. It was barely safer than taking a barrel over Niagara Falls. We do have much more capable and reliable technology.

	▲	jvm___ 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Buzz Aldrin (?) was quoted as recalling holding a pencil inside the capsule as they were out in space and thinking "that wall isn't very thick or strong, I could probably jam a pencil through it pretty easily..." Death being a layer of aluminum away changes your mind.

▲

wat10000 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a miracle nobody died in flight during the program. Exploding oxygen tank, rockets shaking themselves to pieces during launch, getting hit by lightning on top of a flying skyscraper full of kerosene and liquid oxygen....

▲

djmips 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee died on the Apollo program. I feel it's not polite to ignore that fact even if you add an 'in flight' qualifier.

▲

thinkingtoilet 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Starting from the first test pilots, a lot of people died for us to get to the point to launch that flight. So while no one died on the flight, lots of people died just getting us there. If I recall, in The Right Stuff, it's mentioned that those early test pilots had something like a 25% mortality rate.

▲

ErroneousBosh 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Think about the "failure mode" of the aircraft that won World War II, the Supermarine Spitfire.

There was a fuel tank mounted between the engine and cockpit so if it took enough of a hit to puncture right through (not hard, in practice) the failure mode was that the cockpit was now full of a 350mph jet of burning petrol.

Still, it did the job.

▲

wat10000 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The early jet age was pretty nuts. Check the Wikipedia page for a random fighter from the era and you'll see figures like, 1,300 built, 50 lost in combat, 1,100 lost in accidents. And that's operational aircraft. Test pilots were in even more danger.

▲

Quinner 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some were pretty bad, but none were nearly that bad. The B-58 Hustler lost 22% of its airframes, the F7U Cutlass 25%, the F-104 Starfighter in German service lost 33%. And those were outliers.

	▲	wat10000 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're right, those numbers are from the F-8 but include non-total-loss accidents. I don't think the numbers you quoted are outliers, though. The F-100 lost ~900 out of 2,300. The F-106 lost ~120/342. That's a pretty big list of planes with a 1/5-1/3 loss rate.

▲

jaggederest 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You should go back even a little further, the USPS air mail service lost 31 of the first 40 pilots.

	▲	mrguyorama 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Back in the days where the plan was "So we've built literal signal fires and giant concrete arrows and well, good luck, it won't help"

▲

ErroneousBosh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Have you ever listened to Robert Calvert's "Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters"?

▲

russdill 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"popularly described" and how it's currently understood are two different things. Because it's hard to explain to lay people, it's popularly described in a number of simplified ways, but it's well understood.

▲

nativeit 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Related topic on CuriousMarc and co.’s AGC restoration: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47641528