PDA

View Full Version : A curious quote from Sir David Attenborough regarding Apollo



Ian R
2002-Feb-17, 09:05 PM
This quote was taken from a television programme celebrating the 40th anniversay of the BBC:





"It was an enormous event, of course, and overtook the country and the BBC television centre too. We devoted 24 hours of television to it, from the big studio.



"And it was thrilling - we cleared all the programmes and, of course, the Americans had a reserve spacecraft ready, in case something went wrong with the first one.

<quote>

"So a fortnight later, that one went off too and I thought it was just the most thrilling thing."
<font size=-1</font>

I am especially interested in the second and third paragraphs from the quote above. Did such a reserve spacecraft exist? If so, why was it launched only a fortnight after the Apollo 11 mission took off?

This is the first time I have heard anyone refer to a reserve spacecraft being used for the first lunar landing - is this true? Attenborough is a fairly reliable source since he presented the BBC television coverage of this particlar event (he was also BBC Television Director of Programmes at that time).

Can anyone shed some light on this?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-02-17 16:16 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2002-Feb-17, 09:14 PM
The simple explanation is that Sir David is mistaken. Of course, this will not stop the HBs from latching onto it.

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-02-17 16:16 ]</font>

Jigsaw
2002-Feb-20, 03:25 AM
Theories, theories... Working out with the search engine... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

He was born in 1926, BTW, so he's not THAT old. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

1. Is he possibly just misremembering the date of Apollo 12, which was indeed later in 1969, but in November, not in August? A "few months" later, not a "few weeks"?

2. Or, there was the Zond lunar flyby, launched August 7, 1969. Is he maybe remembering this as a "reserve spacecraft"? Yes, it was launched from the USSR, but maybe in all the excitement ("Yanks land on moon! Film at 11!") he just didn't process that particular bit of information. Maybe he just remembers, "Oh, another moon rocket launch!"

3. Is he maybe remembering the Mariner 7 flyby, which took place the first week of August 1969--again, in all the excitement, filing that mentally under "Yanks launch another one!" rather than "Yank Mars spacecraft launched last spring finally reaches its destination".

4. Or maybe it was the launch of Orbiting Solar Observatory #6, on August 9, 1969, that he's remembering. "Yanks launch another one!"

5. Maybe it was the launch of the synchronous gravity-gradient spacecraft known as ATS-5 on August 12, 1969. "Yanks, ditto!"

Okay, I'll stop now. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

David Simmons
2002-Feb-20, 06:20 AM
On 2002-02-17 16:05, Ian R wrote:
This quote was taken from a television programme celebrating the 40th anniversay of the BBC:





<b"And it was thrilling - we cleared all the programmes and, of course, the Americans had a reserve spacecraft ready, in case something went wrong with the first one.



"So a fortnight later, that one went off too and I thought it was just the most thrilling thing."[/b]
<font size=-1</font>




This site gives the Apollo schedule and there is no "backup" to Apollo 11 on it. Attenborough seems to have misremembered. It happens sometimes. Apollo (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Simmons on 2002-02-20 01:23 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-20, 01:27 PM
On 2002-02-17 16:05, Ian R wrote:
This quote was taken from a television programme celebrating the 40th anniversay of the BBC:

Where did you get this quote? I couldn't find it on the web. This BBC webpage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/tv_and_radio/newsid_1231000/1231593.stm) claims that the BBC started in 1922, which would have made the 40th anniversary 1962, seven years before the events described. BBC TV started in 1936, so the 40th anniversary of that would have been 1976--is that when the program aired?

Jigsaw
2002-Feb-21, 03:37 AM
I'm guessing it was a show for the 40th anniversary of the Beeb's "Natural History Unit", not the whole Beeb.

http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/slup/Articles/nathistunit.html

2002-Feb-21, 10:27 AM
<a name="20020221.3:52"> page 20020221.3:52 aka BY NAME
On 2002-02-20 22:37, Jigsaw wrote: To: 3:53 A.M. Search4
1: No match for 'sonoma'
2:
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/slup/Articles/nathistunit.html3:] Search results
4:Username: Jigsaw ([11]View posts by this user)
5:Twas My 1st EVER use of (11) View post BY
6:Tanks4 insights
7:now back to my routine REinTROduce the Parameter
3:56 A.M.

Ian R
2002-Feb-22, 11:15 PM
I transcribed the quote from a programme celebrating the 40th anniversary of the BBC Television Centre. Here is an article on that particular programme:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_919000/919794.stm

jkmccrann
2005-Nov-29, 05:12 PM
It'd be a good thing if more reserve spacecraft did exist, more cost-effective, but I have to agree with Jigsaw, no doubt it was just something of a mind-slip. Time is a strange thing you know, and our capacity to measure it is jaundiced by our own experiences.

gwiz
2005-Nov-29, 05:37 PM
1. Is he possibly just misremembering the date of Apollo 12, which was indeed later in 1969, but in November, not in August? A "few months" later, not a "few weeks"?

I think this is the most likely explanation. Apollo missions were launching every two months in 1969, so if Apollo 11 had failed for an easily correctable reason, Apollo 12 would have launched in September. With Apollo 11 successful, the schedule was stretched to enable each mission to more fully build on the lessons of the one before.

Anla'Shok
2005-Nov-29, 07:45 PM
22-February-2002 11:15 PM?

What brought this to the surface? Is someone (HBer) quoteing this? It is interesting but why resurect it?

sts60
2005-Nov-29, 08:05 PM
jk, reserve spacecraft aren't really cost-effective in general. In general, the only planned reserves are for large constellations of similar satellites, or the sort-of backup plan for Shuttles (e.g., Atlantis could have flown in a month or so to rescue the crew of Discovery on the last mission, but that would have been pretty chancy too).

Sometimes, surveillance (weather, reconaissance) or communications satellites are shifted in orbit to fill in for a failed bird. But that's an ad hoc approach.

R.A.F.
2005-Nov-29, 08:51 PM
It is interesting but why resurect it?

Anla'shok, meet Jkmccrann. He is making it his "mission" to unearth all the old threads he possibly can.

Out of his 400+ posts here I would "guess" that at least 100 to 150 are "bumped" threads that are 2 years old (or older).

It has been "suggested" to him that this is making "some" of us very mad, yet he continues...

Why?? I don't have any idea...you'd have to ask him...

Personally, I've put him on my ignore list. (he's the only one.)

Count Zero
2005-Nov-30, 12:30 AM
Anla'shok, meet Jkmccrann. He is making it his "mission" to unearth all the old threads he possibly can.

Out of his 400+ posts here I would "guess" that at least 100 to 150 are "bumped" threads that are 2 years old (or older).

It has been "suggested" to him that this is making "some" of us very mad, yet he continues...

...perhaps because "others" of us have not been here for years (and would not have read these discussions otherwise) also find the information in them interesting. Personally, I cannot fathom why such a trivial thing would be worth getting "very mad" over.

McCrann's posts have the tone of someone who is gregarious and likes sharing things he is curious about. Compared to maliciousness and willfull ignorance of some of the CTs here, I find him harmless indeed.

genebujold
2005-Nov-30, 12:40 AM
Attenborough doesn't write the scripts, folks. He just reads them.

mid
2005-Nov-30, 11:43 AM
Sir David Attenborough is still a phenomenally clued-in person, however. He was offered the DG job at one point, only to turn it down because he was happier doing what he was doing.

aurora
2005-Nov-30, 05:23 PM
Personally, I cannot fathom why such a trivial thing would be worth getting "very mad" over.

McCrann's posts have the tone of someone who is gregarious and likes sharing things he is curious about. Compared to maliciousness and willfull ignorance of some of the CTs here, I find him harmless indeed.

It's because, I think, some of us try to keep up on most of the new posts on this site, at least in certain topics, and it is annoying to click on a thread that sounds interesting and start reading from the top and then partway through (and after investing time in reading it), thinking that this sounds familiar, notice that the topic is 4 years old and the only new thing added was a paragraph that adds no new content or raises no new issues (something like "that's really cool!").

It is annoying, certainly.

Other times, the new post does mention some new development or link to a new related story. That's OK with me.

Maksutov
2005-Dec-02, 12:37 AM
It's because, I think, some of us try to keep up on most of the new posts on this site, at least in certain topics, and it is annoying to click on a thread that sounds interesting and start reading from the top and then partway through (and after investing time in reading it), thinking that this sounds familiar, notice that the topic is 4 years old and the only new thing added was a paragraph that adds no new content or raises no new issues (something like "that's really cool!").Exactly. The classic was the one where the BA was criticized for putting a thread in the wrong place, said location not having existed for about three+ years. Then there's the on-going series where the reviver replies to someone who hasn't been on the BB since ~2002, or the post is so old it doesn't even show up.


It is annoying, certainly.Definitely. I prefer to choose which threads I will read, not someone else, and don't like being misled into old threads brought back for the sake of a one-liner. If I wish to conduct historical investigations of the BAUT, I'll do it myself.


Other times, the new post does mention some new development or link to a new related story. That's OK with me.Ditto, except these instances are quite rare.

I'll regret this, but a quick comment on the subject. I recall at that time (July, 1969) either hearing on the news or reading about someone speculating that the Soviet Moon probe could possibly be a rescue mission in case Apollo 11 had extreme difficulties. Just my memory about this. I'll see if I can find documentation, and if so, start a new thread.

parallaxicality
2005-Dec-03, 10:54 PM
He wasn't offered the position; he was the DG for a while, but then left to return to the natural history unit.

mid
2005-Dec-05, 11:09 AM
Did he? I didn't know that. Thanks.

R.A.F.
2005-Dec-05, 12:42 PM
Personally, I cannot fathom why such a trivial thing would be worth getting "very mad" over.

...and I have the perfect example...

I'm reading a thread, and I've decided to post my opinion on "whatever" subject is being discussed. I read the post of a "person" whose opinion is exactly like my opinion. Then I realize that the opinion I'm ready to quote/answer is my own from 2 (or more) years ago.

To me that is a waste of my time...



I'll regret this, but a quick comment on the subject.

You regret being "on topic"? :lol:


I recall at that time (July, 1969) either hearing on the news or reading about someone speculating that the Soviet Moon probe could possibly be a rescue mission in case Apollo 11 had extreme difficulties. Just my memory about this. I'll see if I can find documentation, and if so, start a new thread.

That does sound familiar, though only from memory...

Jason Thompson
2005-Dec-05, 01:06 PM
He wasn't offered the position; he was the DG for a while, but then left to return to the natural history unit.

He was Controller of BBC2, not the DG. He was offered a higher position in management of the BBC, but declined it because he preferred making natural history programmes. His position as BBC2 Controller still allowed (just) time for him to pop out and make the occasional show, but the job he was offered would have tied him to a desk indefinitely.