Apollo astronaut autobiographies

[Dalhousie]

What's the best book in the Aldrin corpus?

[Apollo 957]

I found Mitchell's Earthrise to be heavy going, because of the writing style. Very choppy, short sentences and statements thrown together with no flow.

"Before we set foot on the Moon, there was still a lot of work to do inside the spacecraft. For the next five hours Alan and I read over the checklists for what we were supposed to do next. This way we wouldn't waste precious time once we were walking on the Moon. We also made sure all our equipment and spacesuits were in tip-top condition. We then had a bite to eat. I know we were both famished and some-how all our plastic bags of freeze-dried food tasted better than ever."



What did you do at the weekend, children? "We went to the seaside. I had a sandwich. My brudder went for a swim. Mummy got angry with Johnny." 

[Glom]

I found Mitchell's Earthrise to be heavy going, because of the writing style. Very choppy, short sentences and statements thrown together with no flow.

"Before we set foot on the Moon, there was still a lot of work to do inside the spacecraft. For the next five hours Alan and I read over the checklists for what we were supposed to do next. This way we wouldn't waste precious time once we were walking on the Moon. We also made sure all our equipment and spacesuits were in tip-top condition. We then had a bite to eat. I know we were both famished and some-how all our plastic bags of freeze-dried food tasted better than ever."



What did you do at the weekend, children? "We went to the seaside. I had a sandwich. My brudder went for a swim. Mummy got angry with Johnny."

That's an excerpt? Wow, it is pretty poor.

Reminds me of First Light, the book by Geoffrey Wellum about his experiences in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Was certainly more lyrical than that but there were a few hokey bits and structurally, it was not particularly coherent for a linear story (loads of arbitrary time skips). Obviously a fascinating story to tell but not told as well as it could be.

[Dalhousie]

I found Mitchell's Earthrise to be heavy going, because of the writing style. Very choppy, short sentences and statements thrown together with no flow.

"Before we set foot on the Moon, there was still a lot of work to do inside the spacecraft. For the next five hours Alan and I read over the checklists for what we were supposed to do next. This way we wouldn't waste precious time once we were walking on the Moon. We also made sure all our equipment and spacesuits were in tip-top condition. We then had a bite to eat. I know we were both famished and some-how all our plastic bags of freeze-dried food tasted better than ever."

That's an excerpt? Wow, it is pretty poor.

Reminds me of First Light, the book by Geoffrey Wellum about his experiences in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Was certainly more lyrical than that but there were a few hokey bits and structurally, it was not particularly coherent for a linear story (loads of arbitrary time skips). Obviously a fascinating story to tell but not told as well as it could be.

We aren't reading these for the prose though, are we, but for the first hand accounts.

[Obviousman]

Agree.

[mako88sb]

I'm surprised there's no mention of Charlie Duke's "Moonwalker". Not many reviews but they are all 4's or 5's except for some hoaxnut giving it a 1. I found it to be right up there with Collin's book in some ways:

http://www.amazon.com/Moonwalker-Astronaut-Enough-Satisfy-Success/dp/0840791062/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

I know you can get an autographed copy from his site as well. Too bad the economy has gone to hell up here in Alberta. Be nice to get along with the "Apollo: The Panorama's".

[mako88sb]

I'm reading Frank Borman's "Countdown" right now. He mentions how they checked the dosage readings after passing through the VAB's. Well within expectations and then he mentions about how a lot of scientists thought they would get fried by the radiation. What? Which scientists is he referring to? Surely they had this all figured out so why would scientists think that? I know one scientist was still insistent about there being very deep dust despite the Surveyor landings but that was one guy. Borman makes it sound like quite a number of scientists were worried about the VAB radiation.

[bknight]

... I know one scientist was still insistent about there being very deep dust despite the Surveyor landings but that was one guy. ...

There is reasonability in this estimate, since there were only 5 missions that landed successfully and at those 5 locations the regolith was rather thin, but it MAY have been different is some other locations.

[Zakalwe]

There is reasonability in this estimate, since there were only 5 missions that landed successfully

6

[smartcooky]

There is reasonability in this estimate, since there were only 5 missions that landed successfully

6

No, five if he's talking about Surveyor missions, which I think he is...

Surveyor 1 – Launched May 30, 1966; landed on Oceanus Procellarum, June 2, 1966
Surveyor 2 – Launched September 20, 1966; crashed near Copernicus crater, September 23, 1966
Surveyor 3 – Launched April 17, 1967; landed on Oceanus Procellarum, April 20, 1967
Surveyor 4 – Launched July 14, 1967; crashed on Sinus Medii, July 17, 1967
Surveyor 5 – Launched September 8, 1967; landed on Mare Tranquillitatis, September 11, 1967
Surveyor 6 – Launched November 7, 1967; landed on Sinus Medii, November 10, 1967
Surveyor 7 – Launched January 7, 1968; landed near Tycho crater, January 10, 1968

[bknight]

Since mako88sb referenced the Surveyor program that is what I was referencing also, sorry for the bit of confusion, but seven Surveyors did land, but only five soft landed successfully.

[mako88sb]

... I know one scientist was still insistent about there being very deep dust despite the Surveyor landings but that was one guy. ...

There is reasonability in this estimate, since there were only 5 missions that landed successfully and at those 5 locations the regolith was rather thin, but it MAY have been different is some other locations.

Sorry, I don't have the book handy were I read about this scientist but the impression I got was that he still thought the majority of the moon was covered in several feet of dust.

Kind of strayed off my main point about how Borman didn't think much of the scientists that were sure they would get fried going through the VAB's. Which scientists is he referring to? I've done some searching but no luck. I hope it's not something so easy to find that even Neil Baker could do it. lol

[bknight]

... I know one scientist was still insistent about there being very deep dust despite the Surveyor landings but that was one guy. ...

There is reasonability in this estimate, since there were only 5 missions that landed successfully and at those 5 locations the regolith was rather thin, but it MAY have been different is some other locations.

Sorry, I don't have the book handy were I read about this scientist but the impression I got was that he still thought the majority of the moon was covered in several feet of dust.

Kind of strayed off my main point about how Borman didn't think much of the scientists that were sure they would get fried going through the VAB's. Which scientists is he referring to? I've done some searching but no luck. I hope it's not something so easy to find that even Neil Baker could do it. lol

Well the depth at the 11 locations successfully soft landed, the wasn't "several feet", so that individual was/is wrong.

I don't remember any scientist indicating crews would be "fried" travelling through the VARB considering the trajectory chosen for the missions.  I can't even guess whom that may have been.

[ka9q]

I think the scientist in question was Thomas Gold of Cornell. He had a lot of, uh, "unconventional" views in those days.

[mako88sb]

I think the scientist in question was Thomas Gold of Cornell. He had a lot of, uh, "unconventional" views in those days.

Ok. Thanks. Looks like his original prediction of the regolith depth was modified prior to the Surveyor program and he came up with a pretty accurate model. I guess his style was grating to some people thus the animosity towards him:

From wiki:

"From the 1950s, Gold served as a consultant to NASA and held positions on several national space committees, including the President's Science Advisory Committee, as the United States tried to develop its space program. At the time, scientists were engaged in a heated debate over the physical properties of the moon's surface. In 1955, he predicted that the Moon was covered by a layer of fine rock powder stemming from "the ceaseless bombardment of its surface by Solar System debris".[22] This led to the dust being jokingly referred to as "Gold's dust".[30] Gold initially suggested that astronauts would sink into the dust, but upon later analysis of impact craters and electrostatic fields, he determined that the astronauts' boots would sink only three centimeters into the Moon's surface. In any case, NASA sent unmanned Surveyors to analyze the conditions on the surface of the Moon. Gold was ridiculed by fellow scientists, not only for his hypothesis, but for the approach he took in communicating NASA's concerns to the American public; in particular, some experts were infuriated with his usage of the term "moon dust" in reference to lunar regolith.[31] When the Apollo 11 crew landed on the Moon in 1969 and brought back the first samples of lunar rocks, researchers found that lunar soil was in fact powdery. Gold said the findings were consistent with his hypothesis, noting that "in one area as they walked along, they sank in between five and eight inches". However, Gold received little credit for his correct prediction, and was even criticized for his original prediction of a deep layer of lunar dust.[22] Gold had also contributed to the Apollo program by designing the Apollo Lunar Surface Closeup Camera (ALSCC) (a kind of stereo camera) used on the Apollo 11, 12, and 14 missions.[22][32]"