Apollo 13: Failure Is Not an Option

Apollo 13: Failure is not an Option

Abstract

When Apollo 13 launched on April 11, 1970 from Cape Canaveral Florida, the American Public had decided that traveling to the moon was a routine occurrence. A NASA spokesperson had said, ÐŽ§the TV broadcast were about as exciting as a trip to PittsburgЎЁ. On the evening of April 13, the crew of Apollo 13 had just finished a television broadcast explaining their mission and about life aboard the ship. Commander Jim Lovell closed the broadcast with this message, ÐŽ§This is the crew of Apollo 13. Wish everybody there a nice evening and, weÐŽ¦re just about to close out our inspection of Aquarius and get back to a pleasant evening in Odyssey. Goodnight.ЎЁ No one was watching the broadcast because the networks had decided not to air the mission. Moments later, the technicians in flight control heard a disturbing message from Apollo 13. ÐŽ§OK Houston, we have a problemЎЁ. This got everyoneÐŽ¦s attention and for the next six days the entire world was griped by the suspense and hanging onto every word spoken between Apollo 13 and Mission Control in Houston. From this point forward this mission would become anything but routine.

Apollo 13: Failure is not an Option

Introduction

The movie Apollo 13, directed by Ron Howard, is based on a true story and adapted from the book ÐŽ§Lost MoonЎЁ by Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger. The time is April 11, 1970 in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The mission takes place after a successful spacewalk by Neil Armstrong on July 20, 1969 and a previous NASA tragedy in which three astronauts, Gus Grisom, Ed White, and Rodger Chaffe, lost their lives on the launch pad in a fire due to a malfunction in the hatch.

The Apollo 13 had problems from the very beginning, which started with Astronaut Ken Mattingly being bumped from the mission due to his coming in contact with the measles. Jack Swigert, the backup crewman, replaced him. In flight, the center engine of the S-ll stage cut off more than two minutes early and, to compensate, the remaining four engines were burned 34 seconds longer than planned. The flight proceeded with gratifying smoothness. On the third day of the mission, after the crew does their TV broadcast, the crew runs through an in-flight ÐŽ§housekeepingЎЁ checklist. After being asked to stir the oxygen tanks, an explosion in the Service Module rocks the spacecraft. Despite the best efforts of the crew and the men on the ground, they realize that all chances of landing are on the moon are lost. The mission quickly moves from ÐŽ§moon landingЎЁ to getting the crew safely home. The movie explicitly depicts the positive outcomes as three groups come together to focus and work together by using rational problem-solving skills. As teams are formed they share information, develop new ideas, coordinate complex projects, provide the effective leadership, and climate of trust needed in order to bring the crew of the Apollo 13 safely back to earth.

Group I: Apollo 13 Crew

The first group consisted of Jim Lovell, Fred Haise and Jack Swigert, the space flight crew of Apollo 13. The crew was skilled and highly trained astronauts, but it was the leadership skills of Jim Lovell, Captain and commander of the ill-fated ship that provided the best example of a leader putting rational problem-solving skills into action. After identifying the problem, he and the NASA team had to evaluate and choose alternatives. Lovell not only effectively dealt with conflict between Haise and Swigert as tension ran high, he also battled his own disappointment over the failed mission. He encouraged his team to establish and focus on a new goal-a safe return to earth. Lovell displayed very specific trust dimensions. He was competent, consistent, and loyal and open to his crew memberÐŽ¦s opinions. Captain Lovell not only faced the conflict of having to operate the Odyssey, but he also had behavior conflicts between Fred and Jack. The presence of conditions on the Apollo 13 created opportunities for conflict to arise. There were communication problems between Jack and Fred that lead to some misunderstanding of JackÐŽ¦s role in the explosion of the oxygen tanks. It was obvious early on that Fred was very upset that Jack would be taking the place of his good friend Ken Mattingly for the mission. Jack was not viewed as having the same experience or abilities as Jim and Fred. Jack was rated as a rookie, even though he was an excellent pilot. Lovell did not let the friction and interpersonal hostilities between Fred and Jack hinder the decision making he needed to in order to achieve their intended goal. This would have been a mistake under any circumstances and he knew they were in a crisis and as a result he inspired the crew to:

„X Trust their training

„X Use their analytical skills for essential problem-solving rather than unessential analyzing.

„X Acknowledge that false humility and sagging confidence would waste valuable time and energy

„X Respect their colleagues onboard and in Houston by relying on them to apply their expertise and work their part of the problem.

The crew also had to face the technical problems that also faced them. The crew literally had to learn in a short period of time how to maneuver all over again. The crew overcame the obstacle of frigid conditions when the computer, navigation system, autopilot and other system were shut down to conserve power. All that was left were the radio and a small fan. Jim Lovell also showed great compassion when Fred Haise became very ill due to a urinary infection. He had a fever of 104 degrees. Lovell placed his arms around him, which provided warmth from this body and his heart.

Group Two: Mission Control

Group two consisted of mission control in Houston, TX. This group was led by Gene Krantz who was the flight director for most of the U.S. manned space