NASA Headquarters Oral
History Project
Edited Oral History Transcript
N. Wayne
Hale
Interviewed by Sandra Johnson
Houston, TX – 23 April 2014
Johnson: Today is April 23, 2014. This oral history session is being
conducted with Wayne Hale, in Houston, Texas, for the NASA Headquarters
Oral History Project. The interviewer is Sandra Johnson, assisted
by Rebecca Wright. I want to thank you again for coming in to visit
with us today. We really appreciate it.
Hale:
My pleasure.
Johnson:
As I mentioned before, I want to start today talking about maybe the
first 10 years of your career with NASA. You graduated from Purdue
University [West Lafayette, Indiana] in 1978, and soon after, you
began your career with NASA Johnson Space Center, in flight control,
in the propulsion systems area. Talk to us for a little bit about
what brought you to Houston, and why you chose to come to JSC, and
what some of your expectations were, coming in to flight control.
Hale:
That’s a long story, so I’ll get started and see if I
can’t bring the salient points out pretty quickly. I have always
been interested in working in the space program. I was three years
old when Sputnik [Russian satellite] went up and influenced my early
days. Grew up watching Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and was all excited
about it, and from the very early age, knew I wanted to be involved
in the space program. Growing up in New Mexico, which is my native
state, a lot of what happened was in Houston, which is not that far.
I conned my parents, at a fairly young age, into coming to Houston
to go to the visitors’ center at Johnson Space Center—in
those days, I guess it was the Manned Spacecraft Center—and
found out that Rice University [Houston, Texas] was closely related
to Johnson Space Center, had close ties. I set my sights on going
to Rice University to get a degree in aerospace engineering. Much
to my chagrin, found out they don’t offer a degree in aerospace
engineering. Mechanical engineering’s very close, so I took
mechanical engineering curriculum, and specialized. They had some
elective courses that corresponded to an aerospace degree.
When I graduated in 1976, from Rice, it was a little bit of a low
point. The Shuttle design was in work, but still, the employment was
down after Apollo. I had an opportunity to do a research fellowship
at Purdue, a very nice opportunity, so I went off to Purdue and got
my master’s degree up there. Frankly, had kind of given up on
the option of working in the space program, but the Lewis Research
Center [renamed Glenn Research Center], Cleveland, came with an interviewer,
and I interviewed with them. They said, “Would you really like
to work in Cleveland?”
I said, “Well, I’d really rather work in Houston.”
They said, “We’ll forward your résumé to
Houston.” Somehow, the people in flight control, who were staffing
up, fortunately, at that time, got hold of my résumé.
I got a call out of the blue from Steve [Stephen G.] Bales, one of
the heroes of Apollo 11, and Gary [E.] Coen, and they invited me down
to work.
Of course, I jumped at it. I had other job offers, and actually, the
government pay was the lowest salary offer that I got, but it was
the one that I wanted. I have been very pleased ever since. I came
to work in Houston. You wanted to talk a little bit about propulsion
systems?
Johnson:
Right, and when you first came, you came into that propulsion area.
What were your expectations of what you would be doing?
Hale:
They told me that it was in Mission Control [Center], would be supporting
training, and then the missions for the Space Shuttle. Just as excited
as I could be because everybody’s seen Mission Control on television,
and knew, in rough terms, what they did in Mission Control. It was
just very exciting, and to tell you the truth, I didn’t know
exactly what to expect. I came in and the group that I joined was
growing. There were a number of other young people—Ron [Ronald
D.] Dittemore, who was also a Shuttle Program Manager, had come to
work about a year before I did in that organization—in our branch,
with the GN&C [Guidance, Navigation and Control] folks, DPS [Data
Processing System] folks. I met [Brock] Randy Stone, who had been
a veteran of Apollo, worked with these Apollo veterans who told war
stories about the first Moon landing and how exciting it was, and
so on and so forth. It was really just a heady time.
Then, we got these training classes. The training was just starting,
and we got a lot of classes. Had to develop procedures, met the astronauts,
found out Bob [Robert L.] Crippen knew my name almost before I got
in the door. The man is amazing with names. He knows everybody—or
at least in those days, before STS-1, he knew everybody, it seemed
like, by name, and could tell you what they did and where they were.
It was just very exciting for a young person to come in and see all
their heroes. I think about a month after I arrived, “The 35
New Guys,” the first new astronaut class arrived, right after
I did. Went through training with them, in some ways, and then a bunch
of the Apollo veterans, I think Al [Alan L.] Bean had retired about
two months after I started work, so we got to talk to him. It was
just very exciting.
At the same time, it was kind of slow because things were not happening
very fast. There was a lot of workbooks to read, and I think that’s
pretty typical, in those days. They didn’t quite have the training
up to speed, yet. We started off slow.
Johnson:
Were there formal training classes?
Hale:
Yes, there were all kinds of formal training classes. They had workbooks
that you would read and take a little self-paced test, and turn in
your, “I read my workbook on Shuttle Reaction Control System,”
or whatever it was. Then, they had the single-system trainers were
just coming online, so you would go upstairs in what’s now Building
4-North. It was just Building 4, in those days. The flight controllers
were in the first floor. The trainers and the flight planners were
on the second floor. The astronauts were on the third floor. We saw
everybody in there, and you would go to these single-system trainers
and throw the switches. They also had lecture classes where the trainers
would come in and give you a lecture. We were still developing the
procedures, so we worked very hard with the engineering people, who
were finalizing the design.
In those days, in 1978, when I came, they promised me we were going
to fly in March of ’79. I think that had been the launch date
for some time for Shuttle. Of course, didn’t fly till April
of ’81, and believe me, we needed that entire amount of time
to work all the procedures and get all the training done. We expected
it was going to come a lot quicker than it did. I have a graph somewhere
of the launch date as announced by time, and it’s a saw tooth—how
many months to launch? We’d get closer, and then, bing, they’d
delay it. It went on that way for two years.
Johnson:
As you said, it gave you time to get all the writing that needed to
be done, as far as the different procedures.
Hale:
We had procedures, we had flight rules, we had console handbooks to
develop. We also had teams to develop—you have to go to Mission
Control and decide on this little propulsion team, who does what?
We got the PROP [propulsion] officer in the front room, and clearly
he’s in charge of the little team, and he reports to the flight
director, but in the back room, you got about three people, and they’re
doing different things. Back in those days, one person was watching
the strip chart recorders, if you can imagine watching the strip chart
recorders, to see every thruster firing and how all the jets were
doing. Another fellow was in charge of keeping track of how much reaction
control system propellant or the maneuvering system propellant gas
was left in the tank because the gas gauge did not work. It didn’t
work very well, anyway. We had to keep track of it manually, which
was something they did in all the previous programs, then, project
the red lines ahead. We had another systems guy who was looking at
the heaters and the valves and all the system parts, to make sure
they were all working together.
We had to work out that division of responsibility, set up the procedures—who
did what, when?—and then learn how to get along as a team. There
was a little bit of inter-team rivalry. The flight directors encouraged
that. I remember Neil [B.] Hutchinson was Silver Flight, he had the
launch shift that went to the planning team, and then there was Don
[Donald R.] Puddy, who was Crimson Flight, and he had the de-orbit
entry, also orbit II, I think, and then Chuck [Charles R.] Lewis,
who was [Bronze] Team. He did the orbit I phase, and there was a little
bit of rivalry because people came and left. I started working on
the ascent team, on Neil Hutchinson’s Silver Team, and because
we had some personnel changes, I got moved to the Entry Team. It was
a big deal, in those days, to change teams. There was inter-team competition.
It was all in the name of team-building and trying to get people to
perform to their maximum.
Johnson:
You were preparing for something that had never flown before—the
Shuttle that had never flown before. You said you worked closely with
engineers that were developing these things. How did that work, as
far as writing these procedures, or even malfunctions procedures and
those sort of things?
Hale:
Now that I look back on it, after a perspective of a long career and
having worked in the Program Office and other areas, I can understand
their point of view a little bit better. As a young operator, I didn’t
understand their point of view. They were trying to certify the hardware.
They were trying to make sure the design worked. They had a design
that had gone through many iterations and was actually being built,
and the various parts had to go through testing and qualification
analysis. Here are these operator guys, coming out and saying, “Well,
should we open this valve 5 seconds or 10 seconds before the engine
starts?” They didn’t know, so they would have to go off
and do a study or pull out some test data, which distracted them,
I think, from their primary business.
There was always a little bit of, “What are you guys bothering
us for?” We’d go off and write the procedures as we thought
they should be, and we’d show it to them and they’d say,
“No, you can’t do it that way. Why did you think you could
do it that way?” We had a good group of folks, but there were
a lot of type-A people on both sides of that divide, and there was
certainly some good-natured competition going on there, as well. They
always considered that they were the real engineers and we were not
really engineers because we were operators, which we took great offense
at. It was a good time and it was exciting, and I don’t remember
any real big frustrations, other than, “When are we going to
fly?”
Johnson:
Coming from an academic engineering background and being in school
for six years studying engineering, and then moving to actually hands-on,
on-the-job-type engineering, talk about those differences and what
you had to learn, and what the differences were, for you.
Hale:
What they teach you in engineering school is only peripherally important
to somebody that’s going to be an operations engineer. I had
no courses in systems engineering, which is tremendously important,
to understand how the fluid systems and the electrical systems and
the computers and the thermal, how they all interact, and how you’ve
got to design and operate all those things, or your system, in light
of all of those different parts. We had a very traditional engineering
state. We had solid mechanics and fluid mechanics and thermodynamics,
and lots and lots of math, which I never used. As an operations engineer,
algebra and trigonometry were my friend; calculus, we never used.
Every year I was in college, we were required to take higher and higher
level mathematics, and graduate school, the ultimate course I had
was a course in solving systems of non-linear differential equations.
Which may be of some use to somebody, somewhere, but I didn’t
even keep the textbook.
What we did in operations was so foreign to the academic study. Universities
also, at least in graduate school, were interested in doing research
and writing papers from the research, which I found not to be to my
liking. I had discussions with my thesis professor about staying for
my Ph.D., and all I could think of is, “Let me out. I’ve
done four or five papers, six papers,” whatever it was, “and
had to write a master’s thesis on my research, and that was
enough.” I wanted out of the research and paper mill, and into
something where there was practical, you could see what you were doing.
The engineering background was necessary. I certainly learned a lot
more after I got out. I’m wondering if industrial engineering
or something more aligned like that wouldn’t be better for an
operations unit, but NASA typically doesn’t hire industrial
engineers. They want the aeronautical or aerospace engineer, mechanical
engineer, electrical engineer, and they don’t teach those kind
of, or at least in those days, didn’t teach this kind of system-level
things. Again, lots and lots of mathematics that went way beyond what
we ever used.
Johnson:
Going into propulsion, and, like you said, the other engineers looked
at you as operators, I would imagine that your main focus was on the
propulsion systems, as opposed to system engineering, where you would
know how they relate. Was your main focus on the operations engineering,
as opposed to systems?
Hale:
We were trained early on in flight control that we didn’t operate
in a vacuum from all the other systems, our system worked in concert
with everybody else’s system. We all flew or didn’t fly
together. It became very important to learn about other systems. While
you were expected to be an expert in the tremendous depth of knowledge
about the propulsion systems because that was what we were asked to
be, you had to understand how the electrical power systems work, how
the computers work. We spent a lot of time studying the software and
how it affected the different aspects of the job. Thermal systems,
huge concern to us. Crew interaction displays and controls, checklists,
flight rules, it was really operating your system in the context of
the larger Space Shuttle system. It was never just enough to know
your system.
We always felt like the engineers over in the engineering directorate
had the luxury of really digging down deep in all the piece parts
of their particular gizmo, and maybe not understanding how it fit
into the bigger picture. I think the propulsion systems were particularly
intertwined. Some of the other life support systems might have been
less interactive across the board. We really had to understand the
computer software in great detail, the electrical systems in great
detail, and the thermal control. It was a good place to get an overview
across the board.
Johnson:
Speaking of software and computers, Mission Control had to be redesigned
from Apollo to Space Shuttle. By ’78, when you got there, was
that already done?
Hale:
Yes, that was pretty much done. They had used one of the Flight Control
Rooms for the approach and landing test, which had a very small team,
and then they reconfigured for Shuttle Flight 1. Spent a long time
talking about what they should call it—Shuttle 1, SS 1, for
a while, I saw on checklists, people didn’t like, that had some
connotations people didn’t like, so it became STS, Space Transportation
System 1. Mission Control is one of those places where you continually
diddle with the configuration and the exact nature of what’s
at every console. By the time that we started the simulations in late
’78, early ’79, it was pretty close to what we flew the
first Shuttle flight with.
The other thing that we knew was going to happen was we were going
to fly classified flights for the National Security payloads. The
third floor, they were early in the configuration to do all those
things that they had to do to provide the security along with it.
We’re going to have international partners flying international
payloads on the second floor, and then these classified flights on
the third floor. That got very involved, in separating the systems
and making sure there were the requirements for the security.
Johnson:
I know you started training and simulating, and as you said, you went
into those single-system simulators. When did they start, or when
did you start, simulating the entire flight?
Hale:
They started it in phases, so the Shuttle Mission Simulator in Building
5 came up. It had the capability to do certain mission phases—I
believe they could do the orbit phase first, and they could do the
entry phase, the orbit burn through landing. Later on, after some
months, and then the delivery came when they could do launches, then
you could start with the countdown. It sort of built up in capability
over some period of time. I’m thinking it was close to a year
from the time the first capability came on to the last set of capabilities.
Even then, there were upgrades. I remember, we’d been simulating
for some time, and we were in Mission Control one day, and the electrical
power guy, the EGIL [Electrical Generation and Integrated Lighting
systems engineer] sung out and said, “Main-C is down.”
We said, “What is that?” We didn’t know because
we hadn’t been paying attention because they could not, in the
simulator, put in a malfunction in the electrical system for some
period of time. When they did, all of a sudden, a lot of our electrical
power valves and heaters and switches stopped working, we realized
we didn’t understand how we fit into the system. We got step-wise
capabilities over a period of more than a year, probably two years,
before we could do everything. Then, of course, the simulator kept
growing in capabilities. They added the RMS [Remote Manipulator System],
the arm, for STS-[2], and then we had different payloads that were
simulated, Spacelab, and so forth. It continued to grow in capabilities
and you could do new things, but the basic capabilities, I think,
were in place within about a year, 18 months of the first set of what
we called integrated simulations, where we had a crew in the cockpit,
Building 5, and the full Mission Control team in Building 30, and
it began to look like you were really doing a spaceflight.
Johnson:
You mentioned that the astronaut class came in, the ’78 class
came in right after you did. That class looked a little different
than the previous astronaut classes. There were women and minorities
in those classes. Do you have any memories of them coming in and training,
and how smoothly that went?
Hale:
I wasn't involved so much in the initial training, the things like
the survival classes, and those kinds of things. We would run into
them in the hall and we would talk to them. I guess I’m a child
of the sixties, and it didn’t really make an impression on me
until people started pointing out, this is the first class that has
women and people of color involved. I said, “Oh, yes, I guess
that’s right.” It just didn’t click with me. Sometimes
when you’re young, you don’t recognize these things. I
didn’t foresee any real issues. I do remember, after every flight,
the training team would put up little cartoons and quips and quotes
about the astronauts at their landing. After they’d landed,
there would be a welcome back, and there’d be this hall of funny
little incidents that they’d put on the wall. That kept up all
the way through to the last Shuttle flight, and I think, to some extent,
with [International Space] Station.
STS-7, which, of course, was Sally [K.] Ride, first American woman
in space, had gotten so much press about Sally Ride that when you
came in the door to Building 4, they had a big banner up that said,
“Welcome home Cripp [Bob Crippen], Norm [Normal E. Thagard],”
the five guys, “and what’s-her-name,” which was
kind of a dig. But I don’t think anybody really got upset about
women or minority folks. It just wasn’t that kind of place in
the late seventies.
Johnson:
Did you have women in your engineering classes?
Hale:
Absolutely, I had women in my engineering classes. We had women in
the group that I hired into flight control. Some were very good and
some of them were maybe not so good, it was just like everybody else.
You evaluated people on the basis of their capability and drive and
ability to work with other people. I didn’t see any 1950 kind
of discrimination things going, and never did.
Johnson:
Because you came in during Shuttle, you may not remember, but I thought
since you mentioned that you worked closely with these Apollo veterans,
was there a big difference between the way things were done during
Apollo as opposed to the way things were going to be done during Shuttle,
in Mission Control?
Hale:
I think the computer capabilities had given us much more capability.
It’s a different mission going to a different place with a different
vehicle, so the Shuttle, we all believed—now, I don’t
want to quibble with folks on what actually was going on—we
were going to be flying every two weeks. That’s what the popular
press had picked up on. It was going to be like an airliner; we’ll
fly this vehicle every two or three weeks. We had plans where we would
have one Mission Control that supported two or three or four Shuttles
simultaneously in flight. We were very excited about all of that,
and that, of course, is extremely different. What actually came about
was more like Apollo than like that vision, in actuality, where every
flight was hand-designed, hand-analyzed, carefully put together, and
the flights were months, generally, apart. More like Apollo, Gemini
flights than it really was like this airliner kind of a conception.
Johnson:
I know there were different positions because the Shuttle was a different
vehicle, but was the decision process similar to what was going on,
in Apollo?
Hale:
I don’t have any insight into the upper-level decision process.
You need to interview Gene [Eugene F.] Kranz or somebody. What they
did in Apollo was what they did then, and I think the upper-level,
I did get a funny story, which is much later on in my career, when
I got to be in charge of reorganizing the Mission Management Team.
I asked Glynn [S.] Lunney, who instigated the Mission Management Team
for Shuttle, how it all came about. He told me that one morning, he
and Gene and Chris—that would be Gene Kranz and Chris [Christopher
C.] Kraft—he, the Shuttle Program Manager, the head of Mission
Operations, and the Johnson Space Center Director would meet for breakfast
in the Building 11 cafeteria and talk about what was going to happen
in the Shuttle flight that day. That was the Mission Management Team.
They kept getting bugged by these [NASA] Headquarters people who wanted
to know what was going on. They needed to have a place, not to control
things, but as an information exchange, to let NASA Headquarters and
other folks know what was going on. They established this daily teleconference
call, which they called the Mission Management Team, which was really
a briefing to all these other people on what the Shuttle was going
to do tomorrow or today. It morphed from there, the long history.
It’s kind of funny to say it all started with, “Well,
we would go check in, in Mission Control, and then we’d have
breakfast together in the cafeteria and talk about what we should
do.” You should get Glynn to tell you about that—he does
a better job of telling that story than I do.
Johnson:
Let’s talk about that first flight, and building up to STS-1.
Did you work that mission?
Hale:
I did. I was on the entry team. We had the pre-launch shift, so we
came in during the tanking operations. Mission Control would come
in roughly 12, 14 hours before launch. We had the pre-launch team
that was there to watch the system activation, watch them load the
external tank, chill down the engines, get everything ready to go.
Then, about three or four hours before launch, we’d hand over
to the ascent team, who was there for the final countdown, watch the
weather, and then performed the ascent through the first few hours
of flight. We had about an eight-hour shift. As I recall, we were
launching not early morning, but mid-morning. I’d have to go
back and look the time up. The pre-launch team, of course, had the
overnight shift. We were there till 4:00 in the morning or 5:00 in
the morning, we worked all night.
It was exciting from the standpoint that this was a real flight. After
we’d done simulation, after simulation after simulation, had
sat in the chair and watched the data, then we’d watched all
of these pre-launch tests where the Shuttle was on the launch pad
and they’d done a wet countdown and dry countdown and all these
other tests, we felt like we knew what we were doing. There was just
a tremendously different feeling in the air, that this is now for
keeps, this is for real.
I think one of the things that was interesting is everybody dressed
up. We would come to work and it was not terribly casual, but we didn’t
wear coat and tie. But, when we got to the real countdown on the real
day, everybody came in like their Sunday best, and we’re all
dressed up. There was a lot more food, I think, in Mission Control,
for some strange reason, than there had been before, and this air
of, “This is real, we’re going to really do this. This
is exciting, this is the first time.” I don’t remember
being scared—I think, looking back on it, I should have been
because things could have gone not well. We were excited that we’re
really going to actually get to do this, and this feeling like, “I’m
going to do my part and I want to make sure I get my part right. I
want to do my work without an issue.” Then, of course, the first
countdown, went home, went to bed. My wife woke me up—I told
her to wake me up to watch the launch—she said, “They
scrubbed.” They had the issue where the backup flight system
didn’t track, when they brought it up at T-20 minutes, brought
up the computer systems to the launch sequencing, the backup flight
system didn’t track.
There was a bug. It took them a couple of days to fix that, and they
uploaded a patch, and we’d try it again. It was kind of like
that was a good rehearsal. We got all the way down to 20 minutes,
and then didn’t go, so we get to put people in, take people
off. They had all the steps down, but that last 20 minutes. I remember
I did the pre-launch thing, said to the folks on the ascent team,
“Good luck.” Went home, went to bed, then my wife woke
me up and I watched the launch on TV. It was like, “Wow, I didn’t
know the solid rocket boosters would be that bright.”
I think we’d all seen these—well, they weren’t computer
animations in those days—they were artist concept cartoon kind
of drawings. It just didn’t do the real launch justice. In a
few hours, I had to get up and go take my shift in Mission Control.
Things were not—I don’t want to say they weren’t
working right, but we found out that there were little signatures
that the simulator didn’t do exactly right. Things looked a
little peculiar. We had some things going on that we hadn’t
really thought about. There was no show-stoppers or problems to speak
of, but it was a huge learning experience on the first flight. I think
that was true for people all throughout Mission Control, and the engineers.
No matter how much ground testing you do, being in space is different.
Doing that combined environment operation is different, and things
don’t always work exactly like you thought they would.
The flight was largely uneventful, and landed. The thing that you’ve
got to remember about the early Shuttle flights is we did not have
the TDRSS [Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System] network, so very
much like Gemini more than Apollo, we were out of touch with the crew
much of the time. We had the Worldwide Tracking Network, and we practiced
really hard in the simulations. We’d be coming up on a tracking
pass—what are we going to tell the crew? What’s important
to get on the telemetry, what kind of analysis? We’ve got 8
½ minutes, and then it may be 15 minutes or an hour-and-a-half
before we get to talk to them again, depending on where the orbital
track falls.
We really worked very hard. “Okay, CapCom [Capsule Communicator],
we’ve got this first, that second, this thing third, ask the
crew this question. Let’s get their report on what they’ve
been doing.” Very highly orchestrated. When we got the TDRSS
satellites up—and we have virtually continuously comm [communication]—all
of that, I don’t want to say discipline, but all of the need
for that discipline went away, and it became somewhat more casual
because you had virtually continuous communication. Very little outage.
The real question became, “How can I last till the little bit
of loss of signal that I have with TDRSS, so I can go to the coffeepot
or to my other business? Go to the refrigerator and get my lunch out
because I’ve only got three minutes out of the next three hours
that we’re not supposed to be glued to the data, watching the
data.”
We would dump the recorders, or the INCOs [Instrumentation and Communication
Officers] I would say, would dump the data recorders over those ground
sites in those early days. Then, between ground sites, they would
play this data back. You always wanted to be watching that data to
see if something happened. Maybe it didn’t rise to an alarm
value, but you’re looking for trends in the data and how systems
functioned. That took a lot of our time during the loss of signal.
It was a little bit of a downtime, too.
Johnson:
That first flight, though, went relatively smooth as far as what you
were responsible for?
Hale:
It did, it did. The most surprising thing that happened, I’ll
tell you this story, is I got a call. Ron Dittemore was on the launch
shift. He was in the back room, we were all in the back room. I was
on the entry shift, so I had the shift before him, if you want to
think about it. I got a call from his wife—she called the console
phone number. Nobody had cell phones, this is before cell phones.
Even if you were allowed to use them in Mission Control, which we
didn’t, for a long time. They called the black phone number
and said, “Can you come downstairs? It’s Ron’s birthday,
I baked him a cake. Would you take it up so it’ll be there?
He doesn’t know I’m bringing this in.”
You had to have all kinds badging to get into Mission Control, but
I went downstairs and met her in the parking lot, and we got this
cake and brought it in. We had a birthday cake for Ron on his birthday,
on April 13, in the middle of the mission. I think about that, we
have the anniversary every year, April 12 was the launch, and we landed
on the 14th. On the 13th, I think, “Whoa! It’s Ron’s
birthday, we should get him cake.” It’s a cute story.
Johnson:
One way to remember.
Hale:
Yes, I won’t forget that. There’s a lot of those little
human element things that went on, too.
Johnson:
In the entry, I know because they’ve had some issues with the
tiles and everything, and that was always a concern, but that first
entry, just talk about the atmosphere, what was going on.
Hale:
That was probably the only time that I got concerned because we were
busy. We were very busy in planning the de-orbit burn, making sure
that the rocket systems operated properly, being prepared for anything
that might go wrong, having all our checklists ready and back-up plans
and calculations for if the orbital maneuvering system engine failed,
we could back this burn up by doing with the reaction control system
jets, and how would we configure this heat? We were very, very busy,
right up through the de-orbit burn, which happened between the Australia
Station and the Guam Station. We saw the first part of the de-orbit
burn, they came over the Guam, and they reported, “Good burn,
everything’s normal.” We got the data and we could look
at the data.
Then, it was LOS, and they were into blackout. Loss of Signal, no
telemetry, no communication with the crew. We were done because the
flight was over and we didn’t have much to plan for. I remember
thinking, “Oh, I hope those tiles work.” This was the
first time, and that was the only time that I would say my personal
anxiety level over the success of the mission came up. Before that,
it was all about, “Am I going to perform? How is my team going
to do? How are we going to support it? Are we going to do a good job
or not?” Then, we’re effectively done, and you just got
another half-hour, 40 minutes, to wait before they come to acquisition
of signal off California coast—“Oh, gosh, I hope it all
works right.” There was a lot going on in that 40 minutes. Later
on, when I was a flight director, we had the TDRSS satellites, we
would maintain continuous comm, and you could see every little thing
happening and what was going on. This was just, okay, they’re
on their own.
I remember that Crippen and [John W.] Young trained very hard to be
able to recognize what part of the California coast they were coming
ashore at because there were concerns about the navigation—would
we be able to navigate, would they actually arrive where they were
supposed to be? They spent a lot of airplane time, T-38 [training
jet aircraft] time, flying along the California coast, memorizing
landmarks, so if they came in north or south or something other than
they planned to, how could they correct manually and get back to where
they needed to be? They practiced a lot of landings at some of the
other little airfields in California. If we couldn’t make Edwards
[Air Force Base] and we were 20 miles short, where do you land? We
looked at every little airstrip. Not me, personally, but the planners
did, every little airstrip that’s out there in Southern California,
could we land a Shuttle on it? Wouldn’t that be a surprise,
if you were out getting ready to take off in your Cessna and somebody
said, “Clear the runway because the Shuttle is landing on our
little strip out here?” It would have been really interesting.
Of course, none of that ever happened, but they were ready for it.
Johnson:
Talk about those first four flights before the Shuttle was considered
operational. It was those test flights. Any other instances or memories
you have of those?
Hale:
Gosh, yes, a million because I was young and we were doing new things.
In particular, I got moved up to train to be in the front room on
the second Shuttle flight. We had enough mobility that people kind
of bubbled up in the system pretty quick. I was sitting with Gary
Coen and we had a couple of anomalies happen on that flight. I was
OJT [on-the-job training]—they let me sit in the chair, but
the senior guy was right there at my shoulder. We had some valve issues.
No huge problems, but there were issues in our system that had to
be solved. It was a very exciting time. STS-3 was the first long mission,
more than a couple of days. The first two flights were 54-ish hours
long, and STS-3 was going to be a week. “Oh my goodness! How
are we going to stay in orbit for a week and do everything we need
to do?” It was a thermal test, so we’d turn one side toward
the Sun and leave it there for a day, and let that side get hot and
the other side get cold, and then flip around and do the other side.
We were watching all our heaters and the temperatures and all of these
things.
I remember the thermal folks, we had the ECLSS [Environmental Control
and Life Support System] folks who monitored the thermal environment.
They had made a stick figure—these guys must have been from
Louisiana—and they had a little alligator showing how hot they
were getting. It was the “thermagator,” and so for the
flight director to look down, the thermagator would be going up or
down, depending. It’s silly stuff.
We had a really interesting interpersonal relationship thing happen
on the third Shuttle flight. Flight directors are competitive—they’re
like astronauts—so there’s a lot of competition. The orbit
ii team was run by Don Puddy, and there was a great deal of rivalry
between Neil and Don. Saw this all the time; not always as polite
as one would have wanted. There was an issue during the flight, they
had to re-do the flight plan, which is something that we learned you
almost always wound up doing. Early on, we kind of thought, “We
have a plan and we’re going to stick to it.” They had
a real issue with the plan.
I was on the planning team, and the first thing that went wrong, I
think Don Puddy’s team changed the plan and Neil Hutchinson’s
team came in, and he did not like the way they had changed the plan.
There were words. The lead flight director, among his other duties,
controls the shift handover schedule, so if you’re changing
the plan, you’d have the shift handover schedule, which is on
a phone that you call in on the recorded phone number. “When
am I supposed to come in,” and it could change, and maybe you’d
need to be there half an hour early, maybe you’d be there an
hour late, from the pre-flight published plan.
He put a plan on the recorder that never had Don Puddy’s team
on console. For like four days, it was the orbit I team, Neil Hutchinson’s
team, and the planning team, which was Tommy [W.] Holloway’s
team that I was on. We would work 14-hour days or something. He would
come in and they would do all the stuff while the crew was execute,
and our team would come in and we’d watch the crew sleep, and
maybe wake up in the morning.
This went on for several days. There’s probably a sociological
study in here. At the end, we put a big sign up in the back of Mission
Control. They had the cameras, you could see Mission Control, there’s
a blind spot in the back where you could put things where the cameras
could not see, very important to know that. We put a big sign up,
“Welcome back, entry team,” after three or four days that
they had not had a shift. They were literally off the flight.
During that time—I’m going to get in so much trouble from
this—there’s always food in Mission Control, and on the
night shift, the orbital mechanics works out that frequently, you
only have one pass in orbit, so we would have a five or six, seven-minute
data pass at Santiago, Chile, and then it would be an hour and a half
with no comm with the crew until they came back to Santiago again.
The AGO to AGO passes, and it was very quiet. Think about it: middle
of the night, no data coming in, it’s kind of like, what do
we do now? One of the big activities in Mission Control is food, it
always has been.
One night, the team got together and talked Tommy Holloway, the flight
director, into having an ice cream social. We cleared off all the
consoles down in the front row, the FDO [Flight Dynamics Officer]
and all those consoles, and they brought in all these gallons of ice
cream and syrup and chocolate and strawberries and bananas, and we
had an ice cream social. It was a big deal. When we got all done,
there’s this huge mess. Took us quite a bit of time to clean
this mess, sticky stuff all over. I can’t believe we did this.
In the morning, then, when Neil Hutchinson’s team was coming
back, the only thing we really had to do all night, watch the data,
make sure everything’s okay, but put together the next day’s
plan, minute by minute plan, that the crew is going to execute. We
failed to get that plan complete before the lead flight director’s
team came in. We heard about that, so that was the last ice cream
social, ever, that I know of. There may have been others—there’s
always food—but we never did that again. That’s one of
those things that as the planning team, you always want to make sure
that the plan is done and complete before the lead flight director
comes in, and he always comes in early.
George [W. S.] Abbey was notorious for showing up at about 2:15 in
the morning. He would come in, and you could almost set your clock
by him. He would come into Mission Control about 2:15 every morning,
and sit with the flight director. Later on, when I became a flight
director, it was, “Good morning, Mr. Abbey, how are you? Everything’s
quiet here. What would you like to know?” You could almost set
your watch by him, it was very interesting. The rest of the Management
Team would start showing up 6:30-ish and it would get really busy.
The planning team flight director, planning team, had complete control
of the nation’s space program for about seven hours. Nobody
was there in the middle of the night to tell you, “Don’t
do something.” When the first manager showed up, you were done,
and it was, “You did what in the plan?” “Okay, let
me explain.” It’s a great job. I loved it.
Johnson:
Do you have any idea why George Abbey chose 2:15 in the morning?
Hale:
There are some rumors, but I’m not going to go into them. I
think you can correlate them with other sociological data in the area
and what might be going on, but yes, he would show up in the wee hours.
First, when he was the head of Flight Crew Operations, and then when
he was Center Director. It’s the same pattern.
Johnson:
There were a lot of firsts going on during this time, of course, after
the first flight. STS-3 landed at White Sands [New Mexico]. There
were several others, and as you mentioned, STS-7. STS-6 was the first
[Space Shuttle] Challenger flight. Talk about some of those firsts,
bringing the newer Shuttles on.
Hale:
I would go back just a second to STS-4 because I think that was a
really critical flight. It was the first time that we’re going
to land on a concrete runway, we’re going to go to Edwards Air
Force Base, and it’s the only flight that I know of that the
schedule was dictated by politics. There’s a lot of discussion
about different flight schedules, and maybe there were things that
I was unaware of. Harold [M.] Draughon, who was the flight director,
was very open about the fact that he told us that the number-one flight
rule is we would land on the Fourth of July at Edwards Air Force Base,
and no matter how long the flight was, we would land on the Fourth
of July at Edwards Air Force Base because the President [Ronald Reagan]
was coming. The widespread expectation is the President would announce
that NASA is going to build a Space Station, July 4, 198[2], that
we would be allowed to build a Space Station.
Sure enough, flight launched on time. We did the fully planned mission,
we landed July Fourth at Edwards Air Force Base, and rolled to a stop.
President Reagan and Nancy [Reagan] were there to greet the astronauts
when they got off, and there was a nice ceremony. We all sat in Mission
Control. Usually, after the crew gets out of the Shuttle, Mission
Control is done, and we clear out. People were tired, you’d
take your books back to the office, your documents that you would
analyze the next work day, and we’d go home. This time, we all
sat and watched on the big screen. The President made a very nice
speech and did not announce the Space Station. We were all sorely
disappointed, so that was a huge thing.
STS-4 also marked the first time that we worked with National Security
Space [Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory] because they had
a payload complement that was on board that was, at some level, considered
security. It was a milestone in that regard, and got much tighter.
It was a real silver lining on the black cloud, I guess, that after
Challenger, [accident, STS-51L] the National Securities payloads went
away. NASA is not set up, not physically, emotionally, or culturally
set up, to do National Security operations. We do, and we do it about
as well as it probably should be done. Folks tried really hard, but
it just wasn’t natural for us to do that. We did get a lot of
good people.
We worked very closely with the Air Force. They sent a whole cadre
of flight controllers—detailees, they called them—the
Manned Spacecraft Detachment. We got some very, very good people and
they helped us out a lot. I know General Willie [William] Shelton,
who’s currently the commander of U.S. Space Command, four-star
general, he and I worked together in Mission Control on early Shuttle
flights. Great guy, and other people, we really got a lot of help
from, but I wouldn’t go back to those days. It was just very
odd, very difficult for us to fit in that environment.
Johnson:
The training or getting ready for those DoD [Department of Defense]
flights and those type of flights was completely different.
Hale:
Right, and learning how to keep classified documents in secure locations,
and who you could invite to meetings, and having guards at the door,
is just very, very odd. For most of our work, it was very open and
the public’s invited, and we tell everything about everything
that we know. Then, here we go, we can’t say anything about
anything. It was just a real cultural problem for us, and STS-4 marked
the first one of those. I, personally, didn’t get real excited
about the new Orbiter. That also happened when STS-4 landed, as [Challenger]
was at Edwards and was taking off on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.
That was part of the whole show on that Fourth of July, was that yet
another Orbiter, having come out of the factory, was headed toward
a launch site.
Discovery, from my systems point of view, Challenger, Columbia, were
virtually identical in the propulsion systems. They had different
weight, they had some new this and that, but they weren’t different
in the propulsion systems. We were very worried about our small thrusters.
We had, on the reaction control system, 38 large thrusters and 6 small
thrusters, the vernier thrusters. The original design intent for the
verniers is that they would only be used for fine-pointing exercises,
for short periods of time. It was less gas consumption and less propellant
consumption to use them for attitude control all the time because
the big thrusters were actually oversized for that, and so they were
somewhat inefficient. You would bing back and forth, and they were
loud and they’d keep the crew awake, and various things, when
they were trying to sleep.
We started using the vernier thrusters all the time, and we literally
were wearing those things out. The engineering team had to figure
out how to redesign the coatings on the rocket engine throats and
install those, and we had to keep track of lifetime on those thrusters,
and total number of pulses, which is hard to do. Those little thrusters
were working all the time. We had a number of issues in those days
to work through.
Johnson:
Any issues with any of your systems from landing at White Sands, on
STS-3?
Hale:
Everybody talks about how terrible White Sands was—I actually
read a report, we carried an experiment called an IECM, Induced Environment
Contamination Monitor, in the payload bay of the Shuttle for the first
four flights. The payload bay that was the cleanest was STS-3, in
spite of the sandstorm that happened after landing and all the tales
you hear about the gypsum dust and so forth, the payload bay was the
cleanest. Even more than STS-4, that landed on a concrete runway on
a perfectly calm day. I don’t know how that happens, but that
is the technical fact.
I grew up in New Mexico. I knew that landing in New Mexico in the
spring was going to be a challenge because it is a very windy time
of year, there. That’s just when the winds kick up, March and
April. It was no surprise when we had to waive off the first landing
because the wind was so high. We had a good day, we landed, and we
all went home.
Then, the next day, before they could get the Shuttle undercover,
as it were, they had this big sandstorm. They hadn’t brought
the right equipment to protect the Orbiter, so they got a lot of fine
gypsum, talcum-powder-like dust in all the little crevices. They had
thrusters that had to be removed because the very small passageways
in the injector of those engines got clogged. There was a lot of clean-up
work.
I know, learning from that experience, the folks out at White Sands,
which we carried as a third-level backup planning site for the duration
of the program, always made sure they had the protective covers in
hand, which they didn’t for STS-3. They poured a concrete pad
that was off of this gypsum lake that they could tow the Orbiter to,
to get it out of the wind and out of the gypsum dust. I always thought
that if we ever needed to land at White Sands again, it wouldn’t
be as huge a deal as it was that first time because we didn’t
prepare properly for it.
We only made one landing out there. White Sands was a challenge because
of the altitude of the landing site. It’s the highest, it’s
about 4,000 feet above sea level, and California’s Edwards Air
Force Base, 2,400, if memory serves right. Of course, the Shuttle
Landing Facility [Florida] is sea level. Gliders fly better when they
have thicker air, so White Sands did represent a challenge, but it
was a perfectly fine place to land.
STS-9 was the first Spacelab flight. That was a very important flight.
We had a very long flight, it was an eventful flight. We had a fire
in the back end of the Orbiter, post-landing, when the auxiliary power
units [APUs] had some problems. The hydrazine-powered turbines that
pumped the hydraulic, we learned a lot about that. We had two computer
failures in flight just before de-orbit, and we had to deal with that.
There was more excitement on that flight than we should ever really
have again, and we learned a number of lessons in how to prepare the
vehicle.
I think there’s a KSC [Kennedy Space Center] Orbiter project,
how do we prepare the vehicle better? They had some issues where little
pieces of solder—some of the electronic boxes, if you look at
the circuit boards, there are all these little soldered connections—some
of these little pieces of solder had broken off and floated around
in zero gravity and caused short-circuits and caused two computers
to fail out of the five. One, we recovered, one, we didn’t.
That was high risk. Then, these auxiliary power unit problems that
really was quite scary.
We didn’t realize what was happening, I don’t think, at
the time—at least, I didn’t—post-landing, we were
done, the propulsion system was turned off, all the valves were closed,
we were safed, and all of a sudden, the MMACS [Mechanical, Maintenance,
Arm and Crew Systems] guy, the APU hydraulics guy, was saying, “We’ve
had some problems.” Just at the time the crew was just about
to turn them off, they detected that there was fire going on back
there because hydrazine was coming out. We had to redesign after that.
STS-8, the mission before, was the first night landing. That was a
huge deal, trained very hard for the night landing. Dick [Richard
H.] Truly was the commander, and the thing I remember most about the
landing for STS-8 was it was the middle of the night. It was 2:00
or 3:00 in the morning when we landed. Whenever we had landed a Shuttle
flight before, it was always middle of the day, and you’ve seen
the pictures from Apollo, where they had a splashdown, immediately
Mission Control is filled and there’s this huge crowd of people.
I wouldn’t exactly say party atmosphere, but along those lines.
We’d have not just the people who had been working in Mission
Control in the shift, but all the management.
When we landed STS-8, it was 2:00 in the morning. We got all done
and they said, “Okay, unlock the Mission Control Center doors
and let people in,” and nobody came. It was like, here we are.
We all put our stuff away and went home, and the party didn’t
happen till during normal people time. All of that worked the entry
were kind of, “Where is everyone? What did we do wrong? Where’s
the party?” That was something that changed. Those post-landing
celebrations decreased over time, just as a natural course of events,
I think. The real shocker was on the eighth flight, nobody came. Everybody
stayed on and watched it on TV.
Johnson:
[STS-]41-B was the spacewalks, and the first landing at Kennedy.
Hale:
41-B I remember because that’s when we had the MMU [Manned Maneuvering
Unit] flight, and that was very famous. We tried to do a spacewalk
on STS-5, I believe, and the spacesuits did not work. We found out
some things about the EMUs [Extravehicular Mobility Units (spacesuits)]
on that flight that was unfortunate. The first time the EVA [Extravehicular
Activity] guys actually sat on console in Mission Control and they
didn’t get out the door. They were very disheartened. I think
we did a demonstration on [STS-] 6, and the suits actually worked,
and that was good. Then, we had the Manned Maneuvering Unit checkout
flight, on 41-B, which was going to be STS-[10]. We changed the numbering
system because people didn’t like STS-13, which is a whole other
story.
It all came about because we were beginning to publish flight rules
and other documents that said “STS-13,” and all of a sudden,
it came down on high that we were to have this new numbering system.
It would start with STS-[10] being STS-41-B, and so the numbering
scheme was really strange, if you think about it. The first digit
is the fiscal year, in the eighties, in which the flight was originally
manifested to fly. Not necessarily when it actually flew, but when
it was originally manifested to fly—it was going to fly in ’84—1
for Kennedy Space Center, we actually did some training for 62-A,
2 being Vandenberg [Air Force Base, California], we were going to
fly out in Vandenberg in those days. The second digit was the launch
site. The third digit was the order in which, again, it was originally
manifested in the fiscal year, so, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, whatever.
I keep thinking, what would have happened if we had kept going into
the nineties with that numbering scheme? We would have the same designator
show up again. It was just nuts, and people never understood it. After
Challenger, of course, we went back to good old STS-whatever number.
They didn’t always fly in order because flights change around.
I really do believe that it was because people didn’t want to
see STS-13. Apollo 13, of course, had some interesting things happen.
I’m not superstitious, but somebody must have been. That’s
a digression.
STS-41-B was notable because it was the first landing at the Kennedy
Space Center on the Shuttle Landing Facility, which was really important
for the program. We had this MMU flight, which was the Bruce McCandless
picture and the MMU was a classic, always will be. I always felt sorry
for the second guy, Bob [Robert L.] Stewart, who also flew out. Nobody
looks at his picture.
We learned some things about the Manned Maneuvering Unit. We really
only used them for about three flights, and then decided that there
was more risk inherent in those devices than we really cared for.
They were retired, and a second generation, if you will, that’s
for emergency use only, the SAFER [Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue]
units, were developed when we got to the Space Station. If the MMU
failed, ran out of gas, whatever, the theory was, well, the Shuttle
could fly over and pick the guy up, which we could, until you were
docked to something like the Space Station and you could just go get
somebody. The MMU had a number of single-point failures in it, which
was very risky. As a PROP guy, we had to always budget in enough propellant.
We have to give a go or no-go for MMU free flight. If we did not have
the requisite amount of propellant to go rescue somebody and then
safely come home, to de-orbit the Shuttle after that, we would give
a no-go.
We never did—the Shuttle always had propellant—but 41-C,
when we went after the Solar Max [Maximum]Satellite and the device
that Pinky Nelson, George [D.] Nelson, had to latch on to that flight
didn’t work, and tumbled the spacecraft and tumbled him, and
all of a sudden, we were off to the races. That was really a scary
time. We could have run out of gas. Bob Crippen did a masterful job
of keeping him in view, and of course, he was able to break off and
fly back to the Shuttle and we recovered him. That was very scary,
on a flight that had gone so perfectly normal and everything was working
just exactly as we’d planned, and we sent George Nelson out
with this capture bar, and he gets close to the Solar Max. All we
had to do is latch on and life will be good, and then, boom, things
just changed in an instant.
We were hosing out propellant, gas gauge was going down, visibly,
and we didn’t know where he was. It was really chaos, almost
chaos, and that was scary. That, I think, was not the last time we
flew the MMUs, but I think that signaled to everybody how dangerous
that particular device was, and how we needed to be more careful.
I think we only had one more flight, 51-A, that we used the MMUs.
As a PROP guy, I was happy, because we were always worried about it.
Johnson:
That’s something that the Shuttle did more frequently. They
released satellites, but they also did those service calls.
Hale:
The Shuttle was going to do everything for everybody. Originally,
they were going to retire all their U.S. launch vehicles and launch
all satellites—science, for NASA, commercial telecommunications
satellites, and National Security Space payloads—from the Shuttle.
It was going to replace everything. After Challenger, of course, the
President decided that that was not a good plan. I think the National
Security Space people were actually pleased because they like to control
their own destiny more than having to deal with NASA. The commercial
guys, I think, it’s not clear how we were charging the commercial
guys. I wasn't involved with them, but frankly, they were getting
a subsidized ride, and if they were charged full cost, they would
have never flown on the Shuttle because it was just too expensive.
It fell back to just the science, really, that NASA wanted to do.
Build the Space Station, very important payloads like the Hubble [Space
Telescope], Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, Chandra X-Ray Observatory,
and so forth. It was going to be everything for everybody. We were
going to not just launch the satellites, we’re going to retrieve
satellites and service them.
The Solar Max mission, [41]-C was the first demonstrator of servicing
a satellite. It was very successful. There are certain things you
can do for satellites in Low-Earth Orbit. I remember the Intelsat
rescue [STS-49], where they had suffered an upper-stage failure, Intelsat
[VI]. While it wasn’t our primary mission, it became the star
of the mission. The primary mission was another payload, and we took
care of our business first, and then went to Intelsat and hooked them
up with a new rocket stage. That whole story is a very interesting
story as well because, again, we had a capture device that didn’t
work, and we had to re-plan on the fly to retrieve that satellite.
Our only three-person EVA, ever.
We had a lot of stories like that, where things did not go well and
Mission Control had to re-plan them, but not as dramatic, perhaps,
as those couple of flights. We really did some broken field running
in those days.
We were going to service satellites, and I still have a mixed emotion
about servicing satellites. Most of the satellites that need serving
are at geosynchronous altitudes, which the Shuttle couldn’t
reach, so you needed a tug. Early in the program, we were going to
build an Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle, OMV, was in the program and
it was going to go up and rendezvous. Carried up by the Shuttle, go
get the satellite, bring it back to the Shuttle, and then we could
service it. That got cut out for budgetary policy reasons and never
came about, which is too bad, because that would have been a great
capability.
We did a propellant servicing demonstration on STS-41-G. That was
Kathy [Kathryn D.] Sullivan, and he was the chief of the Astronaut
Office for a while—I’ll think of his name in a minute.
It’s terrible to get old.
Wright:
Dave [David C.] Leestma?
Hale:
Dave Leestma, thank you very much. Dave Leestma went EVA, and a pallet
in the Shuttle payload bay connected up the connections, demonstrated
a propellant transfer, and what we called an Orbital Refueling System.
Which we kept in bonded storage, I think till the end of the program,
on the hopes that we would have the need to go fill satellite propellant
tanks with hydrazine. We never used that. I don’t know where
that wound up. Hopefully, some appropriate museum’s got it displayed.
It was a pretty intricate piece of work, the payload that we carried,
just for a demonstration. Really, the servicing went down to the Hubble,
and of course, we were very successful in fixing the Hubble, updating
the Hubble systems. Still up there, going strong. We hope it goes
strong for many more years. Returning a huge amount of scientific
data.
I keep reading that some of these new, huge telescopes that they’re
building on the ground are going to exceed the Hubble’s capabilities,
but they have to see through the atmosphere, and that’s a big
challenge. We’ll see how their adaptive optics really work,
and whether they do a better job. James Webb [Space Telescope] will
be an infrared telescope, which should have much larger aperture and
see many different things, but it won’t be the same as the Hubble,
which is visible light, like what we’d see if you put your eye
to the eyepiece, as it were, at the focal point. I think the Hubble
will be unique for a long time, and we did five servicing missions
to the Hubble. Immensely successful. Not without their challenges,
either—finding doors that don’t open on satellites that
have been up there for a long time, or you can’t get them closed
and latched, and parts that wore out sooner than they thought they
would, rate gyros and so forth. It’s a good demonstration.
Someday, perhaps, we’ll do more. Right now, the transportation
cost makes it cheaper to just fly a new satellite than to try to service
one that’s already up there. I know that we’re doing work
on the International Space Station, in hopes of demonstrating some
servicing task. I think DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency] has got a project to do, demonstrate satellite servicing.
People remain interested in it, but the economics have to prove out.
Johnson:
As a sideline during that time period, you were also doing some college
recruiting. Talk about that for a minute, talk about that experience
and when you went to colleges, where you went and what exactly you
were looking for.
Hale:
We were hiring, in the eighties. I was a first-level supervisor, starting
in about ’84, ’85. I’ve got to think about that.
I think ’85, I became a first-level supervisor. The human resources
team sent recruiters to many colleges, and Rice University, my alma
mater right here in Houston, was one of those. When I found out they
were sending college recruiters, I volunteered and said I would like
to go do that. For a period of, I don’t know, six, eight years,
I went every year to Rice, and they would typically have a career
fair at Rice. I would gather some of the other Rice graduates that
I knew at NASA, and we would go pass out brochures and have a little
booth and talk to people about it. Then, I would go and I tried to
recruit other people to go, but it was typically just me, going to
do interviews.
We would schedule through their placement office, graduating seniors
or graduate students who are going to graduate in six months-ish,
and we would interview. Get résumés and interview. Frankly,
there were several people I interviewed that if we didn’t get
to hire them at NASA, we passed their résumés on to
some of the big contractors like United Space Alliance, it was Ford
and RSOC [Rockwell Space Operations Company] in those days. They were
hired on, and some of those people actually got converted from contractor
to civil service later on. We did a fair amount of recruiting.
It was a little bit hard because, again, you couldn’t interview
foreign nationals. We were restricted to American citizens only. We
were only interested in certain engineering degrees, so you’re
restricted that way, but I always had a full slate of sign-ups. It
was very interesting to talk to the young people and gather their
résumés and write up the interview results. I was always
disappointed we couldn’t hire more.
We were in the spot at Johnson Space Center of hiring, I would say
most of those years, less than 10 new civil servants a year. The first
job offers would go to the cooperative education students, and so
any college recruiting was very limited. We recruited from a number
of schools—Notre Dame [South Bend, Indiana], Purdue, a number
of schools, Texas A&M [College Station]—and if you got one
civil service hire out of a week’s worth of effort, then you
considered that as a good accomplishment. It was a good thing to do.
We stopped doing it when the hiring freeze went on, at some point
in the late eighties, and that was the end of that. I don’t
know if they’ve restarted that now. I suspect they probably
haven’t because the civil service workforce is in a reducing
phase rather than an expanding phase right now, at least at Johnson
Space Center. We would occasionally have somebody that was interested
in another space center, and we’d try to forward the forms appropriately.
I never heard how that ever turned out.
Johnson:
Do you notice any difference over those six to eight years in the
students that you were talking to, as far as their expectations for
working for NASA?
Hale:
A lot of the folks that we talked to had very little understanding
about what we did. Again, this goes back to the university environment;
they had been taught research, that’s what we do in the university
environment. We’re going to do experiments and write papers
and do research. They wanted to come do research, and I would have
to explain that Johnson Space Center is not a research institution.
If you want to do research, then Ames [Moffett Field, California],
Glenn, Langley [Hampton, Virginia] Research Centers might be more
what you’re interested in. A lot of them went away a little
unhappy that they weren’t going to win the Nobel Prize doing
research for NASA.
In Houston, recruiting’s always tough in the engineering field
because the petrochemical business is so big, and their salary offers
are so much higher than the civil service salary offers. You really
had to find those few people that really, like me, would work for
NASA for much less money than they could get if they went to work
for Exxon or Shell or somebody like that. Those people recruit very
heavily, they were always recruiting. I know when I’d go to
the placement office, I’d have one room for two or three days.
You would see these other big engineering firms, Bechtel or somebody,
come in and they would have 10 recruiting rooms for two weeks, and
they would talk to everybody. It’s difficult to compete with
that.
Johnson:
I was curious, you mentioned that those flight teams, when you formed
them at the beginning, that it was rare to switch. Did that carry
on for those first 10 years?
Hale:
No, after the first flight, it was kind of fruit basket turnover.
Some of the older folks were promoted or retiring or this or that,
and there were lots of new slots. People bubbled up, and it became
all about filling out your teams, making sure you had the best-qualified
team. I know as a first-level supervisor, I worried about the teams
that I would field for the PROP [Propulsion Systems] Section, in the
sense that I always wanted to have somebody with experience to counterbalance
some newer person. We had a good feel for who was a top performer
and maybe who was not quite such a stellar performer. You tried to
mix and match, so that you didn’t have a team that was just
totally weak. You’d like to have a team of all superstars, every
position, and then we got into the flights coming so close for a period
of time that people couldn’t work every flight. You would have
to stagger people off.
It was really mix and match, and this whole kind of flight control
color team that came out of Apollo, that people had great identification
with their team, and there was this inter-team rivalry, I think that
just disappeared very quickly, certainly by STS-3, probably by STS-2.
People just went wherever there was a vacancy, wherever they were
assigned. We always had the continuing tension between the line supervisors,
of which I was one for a few years, and the Flight Director’s
Office, who had to accept these teams. Your line supervisor would
say, “Well, your front room operator at position X is going
to be so-and-so,” and as flight director, you’d say, “Great,”
or you’d say, “Ugh.” Then, you’d go try to
negotiate to get the great guy on your team—guy or gal—and
“ugh” guys could be on the other flight director’s
team. People moved around a lot. We started selecting the very best
and brightest to the next class of flight directors, or going on up
in the management in different positions, branch chief, division chief,
what have you. Then, we’re bringing new people in.
MOD [Mission Operations Directorate] is interesting because we had
this badge-less society, where we had our support contractors. Later
on, it was United Space Alliance, but in the early days, it was the
various contractors. We actually had a number of contractors—Ford,
who’s a big one—that supplied people to us. We treated
everybody the same. Early on, there was a principle that you could
not put a contractor in the front room. You wouldn’t put a contractor
on the console in the front room because he might be supervising civil
servants in the back room. We very quickly had to break that down—we
just didn’t have the luxury of not doing that. Sometimes, the
contractor was the better operator, certainly the more experienced
operator, and we’re bringing in new kids into the civil service
ranks. We just had to do those kinds of things.
That skirts a little bit around federal HR [Human Resources] rules
because technically, a contractor’s not supposed to supervise
civil servants, but we did what we had to do. I don’t know whether
there were some things that we had to mind our Ps and Qs on so that
we never got in trouble with HR, as far as I know. We didn’t
want to find out. Everybody was kind of aware that we were on this
marginal ground, so we’re trying to do our best. The really
good thing about a contractor is if they really didn’t perform,
then they would be gone. As a civil service supervisor, you could
go to the contract manager and say, “So-and-so is not performing;
I think he needs a new opportunity,” and they’d be gone.
You didn’t do that very often because then you’d get back-filled
and you might not get any better on the back-fill, but you did it
when you thought it was necessary.
Whereas the civil service people, it was much more difficult to have
an adverse work action on a civil service person. It could be done
and I saw it done, but it took a lot of documentation and it took
a lot of time, took a lot of energy in the supervisor’s part.
Supervisors, if they had a problem child, would always try to get
them transferred someplace else, which was not an adverse work action.
It was just a transfer. Yes, it really was, so it was kind of interesting.
To be in flight control, you had to have certain skills, certain characteristics.
One of those was you had to be able to communicate very well orally,
think ahead and communicate very well. We practiced very hard at that.
There’s some people who are very good in a lot of respects that
just don’t have that capability, in a pressure situation, to
think through, organize their thoughts, and then coherently communicate
orally. Huge part of the job. There are some people that we actually
thought very highly of, but we had to outplace them, send them to
some different part of the organization, out of flight control, because
they couldn’t master that skill. Or, they’d get flustered
in a time crunch. Somebody might be a very good, great engineer, but
can’t handle time pressure. Mission Control is all about time
pressure, and those people that do well in Mission Control thrive
on that. People that don’t thrive on it don’t do well.
It may be a little different in Station, but I don’t think it’s
a lot different.
Johnson:
Definitely not something that’s taught in engineering school,
I would think.
Hale:
No, no, so when I went recruiting, we would look for those people.
I’m thinking I’m recruiting for Johnson Space Center,
but in my heart, I’m really recruiting for Mission Ops and Mission
Control. I would look for those people that had those extracurricular
activities and things that demonstrated they could have leadership
abilities and communication skills. That’s hard to find sometimes,
among engineers.
Johnson:
Yes, the more well rounded students, sometimes. Those first flights
before Challenger, you worked, in your résumé it said
15 flights up through Challenger?
Hale:
I’d have to go back and check, but I think that’s about
the right number. It started with STS-1 and I did not work 51-L. I
got to be a supervisor and I worked in a supervisory role in what
Spacecraft Analysis Room, SPAN Room, which was interface between Mission
Control and the MER [Mission Evaluation Room], the engineering organizations
one flight. I worked as a PROP officer for a number of flights, and
the number 15, before I became a flight director, rings in my hand.
I’d have to go back and check, though.
Johnson:
You also worked that flight right before Challenger, just a couple
of weeks before Challenger.
Hale:
That was when I was in the SPAN Room, 61-C. It was Congressman, in
those days, [Bill] Nelson was on that flight. Charlie [Charles F.]
Bolden was the commander, made a great spacecraft commander. When
I say I worked it, I had a shift in Mission Control, and when the
operations team would need some detailed analysis or detailed information
that they didn’t have in hand that the engineering organization
could provide, we had a mechanism to write a request—it was
done on paper in the early days and it got to be electronic later
on—but write a request, “We need some information, can
you analyze this situation? Do you have some test data that tells
us how things are going to perform under these circumstances?”
Send it to the Engineering Team in the MER, which was in Building
45, in those days, and they would go off. They had to budget with
their contract vendor supporters that they could go dig through the
archives, or maybe run a little quick test, do an analysis, and come
back with some data for the flight control team to use.
That was my role in 61-C. I wasn’t in the front room, I wasn’t
directly in the PROP area. I was looking out for all the systems guys.
Systems guys, power, thermal, computer, comm, propulsion, as opposed
to the trajectory guys, who wouldn’t have that kind of interface.
They have different interfaces. I did that flight and that was a very
interesting flight because it took us a long time to get it off the
ground. We had a number of issues on 61-C. Was that the one that Steve
[Steven A.] Hawley was on, where he wore the Groucho Marx mustache
and glasses out to the launch pad so the vehicle wouldn’t recognize
him? I think it was. We just had weather and we had technical issues,
and it had got delayed from November/December to January. It flew
very early in January, and then 51-L, of course, right after that.
I didn’t have an assignment on that flight, but I was a supervisor
and my people were on that flight. It got delayed a couple or three
times, and then we had a very unhappy day.
Johnson:
Go ahead and talk about Challenger. Where you were and what you remember
about that.
Hale:
My guys worked the pre-launch on the day before when we tried the
launch. They had an issue trying to get the hatch closed. The side
hatch that the crew boards in, for some reason, they could not get
the hatch to latch properly. I don’t remember the details of
the situation, but I remember they sent for a power tool, a power
screwdriver, to actually manipulate the mechanism somehow from the
outside. They got the power screwdriver out there and the battery
was dead. Of course, you’re four miles from where they have
the batteries in the launch pad and the elevator, and we ran out of
launch window. They had to scrub for the day and get the crew out.
I remember my senior contractor who was on that launch team, in the
propulsion area, Mission Control, coming back and saying, “This
was the anniversary of the Apollo fire.” By the way, the Apollo
fire is mythic status, and it’s one of the first lessons that
new flight controllers are exposed to when they come into Mission
Operations. It’s, “We don’t want to ever to do that
again, and here’s how we screwed up, and we want to make sure
you never make those mistakes.” He says, “It’s the
anniversary of the Apollo fire, and this was so stupid, and this kind
of stupid stuff is going to get somebody killed.” That has rung
in my memory ever since because the next day—and again, I was
a little disconnected, so I knew the weather wasn't good but I wasn’t
really paying a whole lot of attention—the weather forecast
was very cold. They had icicles on the launch pad.
They got ready to go launch the next morning, delayed the launch for
some couple of hours to let the sun come up and melt the icicles on
the launch pad. I remember thinking in the back of my mind, “This
doesn’t look real smart. Couldn’t we just wait for another
day?” Here I am, first-level supervisor, I didn’t have
any input in the process. Maybe some of us should have joined together
to say something. I was in meetings up on the third floor of Building
4 with the astronauts. We’re working on flight rules or checklists.
We took a break when the countdown resumed at T-9. The corner office
had been converted to what they call the astronaut library. It was
just an office room, but it had a table and all these bookshelves
with all these books in it. It had a television, which we didn’t
have TVs in everybody’s office in those days. They were fewer
and far between.
We went in to sit and watch the launch. I was sitting right next to
Roy [D.] Bridges. We watched the launch and what happened, and then
we all kind of went out and said, “What do we do now?”
We knew Mission Control was on lockdown. I had one of the wives of
one of my flight controllers call, “I can’t talk to my
husband, he’s diabetic, make sure he’s got what he needs.”
I said, “I know he’s got what he needs because we talk
about that before every launch, and he’ll call you as soon as
they’re done.” It was several hours, and they all came
trailing back across the pond. Building 4 is on the southeast side,
and Building 30’s on the northwest side of the central mall
there. We walked by the duck pond, and they came really dragging in.
It was very emotional. We really did a lot of counseling for which
I was not trained.
I don’t know how the organization thought through dealing with
the tragedy, but we had no training and we didn’t have grief
counselors and we didn’t know what to do. It was just kind of,
“Tell us how you’re doing. What can we do?” Maybe
that’s the best you can do; I don’t know. Nobody expected
it. We’d launched [24] in a row. We’d had a number of
close calls, and the 25th one was the one that didn’t work.
Nobody thought that. We all expected, if we’re going to have
something bad happen, it would be in the first few, even though we
all knew that it was still risky business. It used to irritate me
when people would say, “Well, we’re operational now,”
after STS-4, because in my mind, at some level that I probably couldn’t
have articulated in those days, I knew that we were not operational
in the sense that people outside would think we were.
It goes back to that, “We’re going to fly every two weeks,
it’s going to be like an airliner, we’re going to carry
Walter Cronkite and John Denver and different people, and it’ll
be just as routine as getting on the plain and flying to Dallas. Anybody
in the program knew that was poppycock. It was a nice goal, but somehow
that story percolated. I’m not going to speculate on how it
percolated, but it got into the public perception, and that certainly
was the public perception, that that was going to happen. We didn’t
know how we were going to get there. I know in 1985, in that 12-month
period, we flew 9 flights, which was the most we’d ever flown,
and we were working harder than we had ever worked. It was extremely
busy, and for 1986, I believe the goal was 15? Might have been 12;
I think it was 15, though, that we were going to fly. We did not have
a clue how we were going to support that many flights.
I know the training team, the wheels were about to come off because
the schedule to get the crews in the simulator and the Mission Control
team all tagged up, it just was almost intractable. We needed more
resources, we needed more training facilities, we needed more planning
tools, which we didn’t have. We were so concerned about our
little corner of the world in Mission Control that we really couldn’t
pay much attention to what was happening at the Cape [Canaveral, Florida]
or at Downey [California] or at [NASA] Marshall [Space Flight Center,
Huntsville, Alabama] or out at Promontory, Utah, for that matter.
It was very difficult to image how we’re going to fly that flight
rate. That was leading up to, I think, 24 or 26 flights a year, we
were supposed to get to.
We had real problems with the Vandenberg operation, which we’d
started the first training sessions for that, and there were some
real technical issues out at Vandenberg. I know the solid rocket motor
people were struggling with their filament-wound cases, which they
needed for that operation. Everybody knew that we were really going
to have to struggle to make this happen, and I guess you could say
we should have seen the train wreck coming, but we didn’t.
Johnson:
Right before that, in May of ’85, you became head of the Integrated
Communications Section, but six months later, you came back to Propulsion,
to be the head of that section. You want to just talk about those
moves a little bit?
Hale:
The people in my class who had come in, in ’77, ’78, ’79,
had reached the level of experience that we could be considered for
those first-level supervisor jobs. As I said, in the early to mid
eighties, there was quite a bit of folks bubbling up through the organization.
Different jobs came over at the first-level supervisory job. We were
just [GS] 13s [General Schedule pay scale] and eligible for the job.
I and many of my friends put in numerous applications because we thought,
“Okay, we’ve been doing this flight control job, we could
be good supervisors and we’ll do that.” That was not the
first job I applied for. There were several positions I applied and
interviewed for. In the spring of 1985, Jack Knight, who’s the
branch chief, selected me to head the Integrated Communications Section.
They were notorious for having had a number of different leaders—it
seemed like they would get a new leader, first-level supervisor, and
then that guy would get promoted. They’d gone through a number
of leaders, so they jokingly called themselves the training ground
for section heads. They were a very experienced group, knew what they
were doing. I felt very strongly when I came over there that to get
their respect—I’m a mechanical engineer, I do not understand
radios, I don’t understand data systems. The theory—and
you’ll hear it espoused in many places—is if you’re
a manager, you can manage anything. At a certain level, that doesn’t
make sense, and so I thought it was very important for me to establish
credibility with these guys, that I would go through the training
to work my way up to all the different positions. Start in the back
room and work my way up. Sometimes, when someone was selected as a
section head for flight control, they would immediately move into
the front room position, which is the most expert position. If you’re
coming from a different technical area, to move into that position
just because you’re the supervisor, I had concerns about that.
I knew I could not do that, so I started the training in their lowest,
entry-level back room position while I was learning to be a supervisor.
I made several stupid first-time supervisor mistakes while I was there,
but they didn’t get too mad at me. There was one memorable day,
Ron Dittemore, who I talk about a lot because Ron and I came up together
in the PROP Section and had always been very close, had been named
the PROP Section head. He was selected, along with Michele [A.] Brekke,
to be a flight director in the fall of 1985. The PROP Section head
was vacant, and they were just starting the application. I was thinking,
“Well, I could have waited six months and probably would have
been in line to get the PROP Section head job,” but I’m
having a good time learning about stuff I don’t understand—radios
and coding and telemetry and all these things—which really was
really good for my career, to learn a lot of things.
I’m in the back room, had what they called the INST [Instrumentation]
position. In the Shuttle world, the INCO [Instrumentation and Communications
Officer] does all the commanding. That’s not true in other vehicles,
but in the Shuttle world, the INCO did all the commanding. I think
there were some payload commands later on, but in those days, INCO
did all the commanding. He delegated that to his back room to command
things, so we did these launch sims [simulations]. I was on the launch
team, training, doing generic training to get my certification. The
one thing I had to do was send a command to start this auxiliary data
recorder onboard the vehicle. On the real Shuttle flight, it started
way early, like half an hour before launch. For these training sims,
we’d pick up at T-2 minutes, so all these commands had to be
sent. The INCO had some commands, and other guys in the back room
had commands, and I had to start this data recorder. Manual panel,
and you punched buttons, and you had to type in this code and then
hit “execute,” and the command would go and the recorder
would come on, and life is good.
We did, as we did in those days, ascent sims, you’d do five
or six. You’d have a six-hour session, from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00
in the afternoon, and you’d probably get five or six runs in.
By the end of the day, I was feeling pretty cocky. I’d been
doing this job all day long, and I was pretty cocky. We got to this
last run and they said, “Okay, you do this, you do that, and
INST, you send the MADS [Modular Auxiliary Data System] recorder on.”
Tickety-tickety-tickety-tick, and instead of checking what came up
on the screen, I punched “execute,” and I had mistyped
one of the numbers. The guy said, “How come the S-band transmitter
just went off? Why did you send the S-band transmitter?” That’ll
scrub the launch in real life, and so we had to scramble, and in T-2
minutes, the clock is counting right down.
We had to get back on and I hung my head in shame, said, “I
did it, screwed up, didn’t check.” I was feeling really
low about that and I came back to my desk in Building 4, and on my
desk was this phone note that said, “The division chief wants
to see you.” I thought, “He’s been listening to
the squawk box, I am fired, I am out of here.”
I went down to see Steve Bales and he said, “We really need
you to go back and run the PROP Section.” That was all that
was on his mind, is, “We’re going to transfer you, and
I’ve talked with Jack Knight and Don [Donald J.] Bourque who’s
the other branch chief. We need you to run the PROP Section. We’ve
got that vacancy, you can do it, we can select somebody else to be
the INCO Section head.” I was okay, but my story, and I’m
sticking to it, is you send one wrong command and you’ll be
fired. I went back over to run the PROP Section in the fall of ’85,
and still maintained a warm relationship. John [F.] Muratore, who
I worked with for years, was in the INCO Section, and I got to know
him really well then and other folks. It really helped me out a lot
later on as flight director, having studied those systems in a depth
I never would have if I’d strictly been a PROP guy. We did a
couple more flights, Challenger happened, and we’re into examining
every thing from square one, every procedure, every rule, every failure
mode effects analysis, every critical item list item.
We spent two years doing that, training up new crews, and then we
went to fly again. Before we returned to flight, they had the next
flight director selection, and I applied. With Bob [Robert E.] Castle
and Rob [Robert M.] Kelso, we styled ourselves the Three Amigos. I
was never really wild about that, but that’s when the Steve
Martin movie had come out, so we were the Three Amigos. We started
training, and actually, I remember it was Sadie Hawkins Day, February
29, 1988, that we were selected and started training, and watched
the preparation for STS-26 very closely from the Flight Director’s
Office, as training. We were not allowed to do anything. What was
the colorful expression that my boss, [Alan] Lee Briscoe used to do?
We were lower than whale stuff on the bottom of the ocean—don’t
get in the way. Learn and keep your mouth shut. Kind of interesting.
Johnson:
That might be a good place to stop. We’ve been going for a couple
of hours. I was going to ask Rebecca if she had any questions about
what we’ve talked about today.
Wright:
The only one I can think of, and you can think about it and we can
talk about it later, if you like, but during those first missions,
as you were learning and the debriefings that you might have had after
each Shuttle mission, and what lessons or what actions you were able
to put in place, and how that exchange of information happened?
Hale:
Our debriefings were pretty technical. I would say there’s not
anything Earth shattering. We would say, “This procedure didn’t
work exactly the way,” or, “it was not clear, these steps
were not clear. The crew had difficulty executing this because, well,
I don’t know why.” But we’d go back and look at
it again and we’d try to understand. We found out that a piece
part of the thruster, the OMS [Orbital Maneuvering System] engine
or something, didn’t work exactly the way that we thought it
did. It was very technical kind of debriefings. I don’t think
we had a great, Earth shattering, philosophical changes, but it clearly
is the way that you run a safe program. You had the team concentrating
on even the minutest detail to see if you can’t continuously
improve the processes. Every flight, we would go through the flight
rules, we’d go through the console handbook procedures. Later
on, we’d go through the computer tools that we had on our little
off-line computers.
On STS-1, we didn’t have anything. They had the Mission Operations
computer, which is a big IBM mainframe that punch cards were fed into.
We had very little way to interface with the computers. We all came
in with pocket calculators because slide rules were passé,
and it was all about pocket calculators. We actually got pocket calculators
that you could put very rudimentary programming into, and the powers
that be, they wanted to know how we were verifying that software that
we were coding in these pocket calculators. All of us kids just looked
at them, “What do you mean? All I’m doing is basic arithmetic.”
We went through this kind of learning experiences, and we’re
always trying to upgrade Mission Control.
I remember during the STS-1 preparation, I kept thinking, “What
if we had one of those new Apple II computers that we could get data
out of, right here on the console?” Nowadays, it’s all
distributed and the flight controllers have a process by which they
can write their own code and put their own applications in, and it’s
much, much better. We were very constrained by the computing capabilities
of the day. The only thing we didn’t do was use our slide rules.
It was very much like Apollo.
We learned a lot, but I would say the debriefings with the crew, the
debriefings with the flight controller, the debriefings in our group,
were very, very thorough. It was always focused on what do we need
to iterate on to make things work better next time? We would find
something—every flight, we would find something.
Wright:
I guess you also found some confidence in knowing what you had done
was correct to build on, where sometimes we think we ought to build
from mistakes.
Hale:
Yes, that’s true. We would say, “Okay, how did certain
checklists, they worked fine, we don’t need to go back and look
at those again,” that sort of thing. We did concentrate on what
needed to be improved, so we’re always looking at what didn’t
work quite—maybe not a failure, but didn’t work quite
as well as you would like for it to. How could we do the job more
efficiently? How could we make sure we took care of all the possible
contingencies, prepared for all the eventualities?
There was a feeling in Mission Control that we could handle anything.
There really was. It came out of the Apollo 13 kind of experience,
and was taught to us, is that we could handle anything—we should
be ready to handle anything. Of course, in Challenger, there was nothing
the flight control team could do. It really shattered that illusion.
There are just things that can happen that no matter how good your
flight control team is, they are not going to be able to turn that
around.
That was a huge, emotional, I think, revelation to a lot of us. We
had been in this culture of you’ll be ready for anything and
you’ll make sure, no matter what happens, that you’ll
be able to save the crew and do what’s right. That, again, goes
back—Apollo 13, there’s this mythos that you get enculturated
into. Talk about some of the things that happened in Gemini—Gemini
VIII’s another good example—Apollo 1 fire, Apollo 13,
and on and on. Then, we have Challenger, and the flight control team,
unless they had stood up and said, “I really don’t want
to launch with icicles on the launch pad, let’s try the next
day,” there wasn’t anything they could have done once
you lifted off the pad.
Wright:
When we come back for the next session, we can talk about, as you
walked into the flight director position, some of those cultural aspects
that you had to deal with that you inherited in the director from
there. We look forward to the next time, thank you.
Hale:
Very good.
[End
of interview]