NASA Headquarters Oral
History Project
Edited Oral History Transcript
Allan R.
Klumpp
Interviewed by Sandra Johnson
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – 9 May 2018
Johnson:
Today is May 9, 2018. This interview with Allan Klumpp is being conducted
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the NASA Headquarters Oral History
Project. The interviewer is Sandra Johnson, assisted by Jennifer Ross-Nazzal.
I want to thank you again for allowing us to come to your home and
talk to you today.
I want to begin by talking about your background and your education,
and how you first became interested in the space program. Talk about
your interests early on in your education and how that led you into
working at [NASA] JPL [Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California].
Klumpp:
I decided when I was five years old, from what my mother told me and
allowed me to do, that there were two things that I was definitely
going to do. One was I’m going to have one wife. And I’m
going to be an engineer, because we lived right next to the flood
control project in Los Angeles [California], and I could see the people
working down there to construct things to avoid further major floods
in Los Angeles.
We lived in a town called La Cañada. I could see what they
were doing, and Lyle Robinson [phonetic], across the street from me,
and I were thinking about what we could do to make our own little
flood control project on our houses’ land. We got my mother
to actually buy us some concrete, so we did make our own little flood
control channel there. That’s when I decided I wanted to be
an engineer, to do things that were really interesting and useful.
Johnson:
Where did you decide to go to college?
Klumpp:
I didn’t really. I didn’t decide where I wanted to go
to college for quite a long time after that, because we changed—my
mother had no idea what she wanted to do in life. We kept moving around
the country, and I changed schools 17 times before I graduated from
high school.
I really lost confidence in the Oklahoma City [Oklahoma] schools because
a woman took my IQ [intelligence quotient], and then she was in the
back room for quite some time evaluating what it was. She came out,
and she was all excited, and she said, “You just got the highest
IQ we’ve ever measured.” Which I don’t think is
really right, because I’ve known a lot of very smart people,
and a lot of people who do more contributing to my ideas than I do
to theirs. I didn’t really believe that. I just lost confidence
in the Oklahoma City schools, because if I was the smartest one there’s
something wrong there.
Johnson:
You impressed them, anyway. You eventually went to MIT [Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge].
Klumpp:
Yes. I finally did eventually go to MIT.
Johnson:
After you graduated from MIT you went to Douglas Aircraft [Company]
control systems?
Klumpp:
Yes, that’s right, I did. I was looking for somewhere that I
could go to school where I wouldn’t be drafted and could contribute,
and that’s why I went to Douglas Aircraft Company, primarily
because of the drafting. I had known what had happened in the Korean
War and I wanted no part of wars if I could avoid it, so that was
one way of doing something useful without getting drafted.
Johnson:
It looks like you stayed there a couple years.
Klumpp:
I did, yes.
Johnson:
Then you went to MIT for graduate work at that point?
Klumpp:
That’s right, I did, yes.
Johnson:
Did you have an idea what you wanted to do and where you wanted to
go after that graduate work?
Klumpp:
I was always thinking that I wanted to go where the action was. That’s
why I got back into going to MIT.
Johnson:
The action at that point was the space program. Did you feel like
that was going to be where the action was?
Klumpp:
Yes, I did. So I was extremely lucky that I had gotten into that,
but lucky mostly that not one of the people that I ever worked with
ever caused a mission failure. I worked for 44 years in missions to
the Moon, and missions to Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn,
and robotic missions in the group at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
They were all robotic missions, no human missions. Not one of the
missions that I worked on failed. I can’t claim credit for that,
because if anybody had failed on a mission that I had been working
on, it would have failed. Since nobody failed, not one of the missions
I worked on failed, which is really remarkable when you consider how
many missions actually did fail.
Johnson:
Yes, that’s true. Sputnik [Russian satellite] happened in 1957.
Were you still at Douglas, or were you at MIT when that happened?
Do you remember where you were?
Klumpp:
I think I was back at MIT.
Johnson:
Do you remember the reaction at that time at MIT? You said you wanted
to go where the action was. Do you remember thinking “That’s
it, that’s what I want to do”?
Klumpp:
Yes, I remember that I had to have a secret clearance. I did work
for a laboratory where they were doing some military work, even at
MIT. That’s when I found out, when I had to have secret clearance,
that my name on the birth certificate was different than what my mother
had told me my name was, so I had to straighten that out.
Johnson:
That’s interesting. Right around that time of Sputnik, you were
at MIT, and then you went to JPL, to the analytical design group,
in 1959.
Klumpp:
That’s right, I did. That’s right.
Johnson:
What made you decide to take a job at JPL?
Klumpp:
Because Dick Morris [phonetic] from JPL had interviewed me and offered
me a job, which looked like a very good job, and did not involve making
weapon systems. I did not want to contribute to weapon systems, considering
what had happened during Vietnam [War]. During Vietnam the newspapers
were full of headlines which said that there were 30,000 Vietcong
killed yesterday in Vietnam. How did they know? These were killed
mostly—the strafing from airplanes. I decided right then and
there that I was never going to contribute to a weapon system program.
I knew darn good and well that they had no idea how many of the 30,000
were Vietcong and how many were on the other side. Civilians on the
other side. But they just quoted these wildly incorrect data as if
it was all true, and I knew damn well it wasn’t true at all.
I decided at that time I was never going to contribute to another
weapon system program.
Johnson:
It was a good decision. Talk about when you first went to JPL. Do
you remember some of the projects you were working on?
Klumpp:
I was working on the project [Mariner 2] for flying past Venus and
taking pictures of Venus by the spacecraft that went by them, and
I designed the control system for scanning Venus when it went by.
It turned out that that scan did get pictures of Venus, so that worked.
Johnson:
Were you working on the Ranger Program also?
Klumpp:
Yes, I was.
Johnson:
That was really the first unmanned spacecraft ever sent to photograph
the Moon. At that time period that was quite an accomplishment. They
were sending images back to Earth from that. Do you remember seeing
images? What did you think when you saw those images?
Klumpp:
I don’t really remember, but you should know that there was
an earlier mission to land a spacecraft on [the Moon]. It was called
the Surveyor spacecraft. It actually landed on the Moon, with a soft
landing. The reason for that program was to make sure that the dust
from the Moon did not just all blow away from the engine, and that
the spacecraft could land successfully. Because if it couldn’t
land successfully, you couldn’t have landed the Apollo missions
on the Moon. Everything did work right with that mission. I contributed
a little bit to that mission, but not very much.
Johnson:
In 1960 you actually went to [NASA] Langley [Research Center, Hampton,
Virginia] and worked with Don [Donald C.] Cheatham and Bob [Robert
G.] Chilton in the Space Task Group.
Klumpp:
I sure do remember that.
Johnson:
The proposal evaluation team. Can you talk about that team and what
you were looking at at that time?
Klumpp:
I was reading the industry proposals for what was going to happen
in missions to the Moon. There were something like 50 different industry
proposals, something like that. There were many dozens of ones that
we examined and evaluated as to how good they were. But it was mostly
Chilton and Cheatham who did the evaluation, and the rest of us just
summarized what we got out of the proposals.
Johnson:
How did you get picked to go on that team?
Klumpp:
Because the person who’d hired me at JPL, he was asked to go.
He didn’t want to interrupt his family life and go there, and
I agreed to do that for a short time because I thought it was where
the action was.
Johnson:
Do you remember some of the proposals? What was the process? Did they
just come in and give their proposal over a period of time?
Klumpp:
No, they were all written, and we just had to read the proposals and
evaluate them. I don’t remember that the evaluation was too
useful, but it was mostly just summarizing what was in the proposals.
That’s what we really did.
Johnson:
Was NASA thinking of using industry more than what they ended up using
them as partners? At that point were they just looking for ideas from
everywhere, just to figure out what they were going to do?
Klumpp:
Yes, I think the latter. They were really just looking for ideas from
anywhere about what could be done.
Johnson:
That was in 1960. But the President [John F. “Jack” Kennedy]
announced in May of ’61 that he wanted Congress to divert funds
to get a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. That was quite
an amazing announcement.
Klumpp:
It was.
Johnson:
I know a lot of people, it took them by surprise that that was going
to happen. What were your thoughts?
Klumpp:
It was amazing that we had made a commitment to do that. Right after
that happened, I was asked to serve as part of the [Systems Support]
Group at NASA Headquarters [Washington, DC]. The JPL had a team there
that was doing that work there, and I became part of that team.
I was very interested in, primarily concerned about, the reliability
of flying to the Moon and back. I did an analysis when I was at NASA
Headquarters, based on the known reliability of the ballistic missile
program, to compute—there were three different ways of going
to the Moon.
There was direct flight to the Moon, which was the most expensive,
but the safest. There was an intermediate mission, which was never
really considered very long, which was Earth-orbit rendezvous. Then
there was lunar orbit rendezvous, which was easily the most dangerous.
The ballistic missile analysis that I did, based on our ballistic
missile reliability, was if we choose the lunar orbit rendezvous,
there was only a 10 percent chance of any mission getting all the
way to the surface of the Moon and back to Earth, considering how
many operations had to be done at the Moon.
It was just an enormous difference. There was about 1 chance in 10
based on the calculations that any one mission would get there to
the Moon and all the way back to the Earth. But that was the cheapest
way to do it, and NASA settled for the cheapest, even though I voted
against it.
Johnson:
Did anyone else vote with you?
Klumpp:
I don’t remember whether anybody else did or not, but that was
what was chosen.
Johnson:
Do you remember how many people were on that team? Or about how many
different people? Was it a large group?
Klumpp:
About 10 or 12 of us who were working on that.
Johnson:
Joe [Joseph F.] Shea, was leading it?
Klumpp:
Yes, Joe Shea was very prominent in that.
Johnson:
I was reading in one of the books—I don’t know if you
remember this instance, but at Headquarters you saw a presentation.
There were two slide projectors at once, and you were talking about
how impressed you were at the technology at that point.
Klumpp:
I was impressed primarily by how little it was possible—the
percentage of what you could remember by having two people with two
projectors at once, and you’re listening to two people talk
at once. You have to look at two different screens and follow two
different lines of thought at once, and that was impossible.
Johnson:
Maybe not the best way to get their point across. That’s interesting
just because the way technology has changed. When you go back and
look at that time period, when you were deciding something really
important, and it had people’s lives in the balance. Like you
said, it was the least safe as far as you were concerned.
Klumpp:
It was the least safe, yes, it was the least safe.
Johnson:
As a group, did everyone feel that you could get past that? You said
there was a 10 percent chance that it would be safe.
Klumpp:
For any one mission there was only a 10 percent chance that you’d
get all the way to the surface of the Moon and back to Earth, on any
one mission.
Johnson:
But they felt that that was okay? That percentage was worth trying?
Klumpp:
They thought that they could improve the safety of it.
Johnson:
They were confident that that could be improved.
Klumpp:
Yes. It turned out that that was correct. I think that the big thing
that happened during the interim was that digital computers got to
be far more reliable and far more capable than they were at the time
that I did those calculations. I think the digital computer industry
came through with big margins.
In fact, the first computer we had doing all of our work for us at
the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, commonly known as MIT/IL, was
a Honeywell [Inc. H-]1800 computer. My wife and I lived next door
to a person who worked for Honeywell. I had put in, in my simulation
for the descent guidance checking, on the correctness of the things
that were computed by the Honeywell 1800 computer. They were getting
wrong answers all the time. Any time that you saw lightning out the
window of the lab [laboratory], this Honeywell 1800 computer was likely
to stop. With my simulations at least, because I was checking the
correctness of their data, it was failing tests all the time.
But the person that lived next to us worked for Honeywell, and I asked
him, “What about the safety of your computers, the reliability
of your computers? They’re making mistakes all the time.”
He said, “Tell me about it. Honeywell is in the process of paying
off a farmer who raises hundreds of chickens in the Midwest, because
they were using our computer to compute the optimum diet for the chickens
and he wound up with 5,000 dwarf chickens.” So the Honeywell
was soon moved off and replaced by an IBM 360 [Model] 75 which was
self-checking, and that was the end of my program finding errors.
Never again did my program stop.
Johnson:
You mentioned you went back to the Instrumentation Lab at MIT in 1963.
What made you decide to go back there when you were working for NASA
before that?
Klumpp:
Primarily I liked the challenge of being involved in a manned program.
Johnson:
Had it already been decided that they would be working on the software
at that point?
Klumpp:
Yes, it had been decided. That’s why I went back there. I never
returned from NASA Headquarters to JPL, I just applied to the MIT
Instrumentation Laboratory and was hired there.
Johnson:
Let’s talk about some of those early days and couple years at
Instrumentation Lab.
Klumpp:
Yes, and I’m prepared to. I had already concluded that one of
the things I wanted to talk about was women’s role in that,
because we had something like 300 engineers, all men, who were doing
all the work on that. I thought that that was not right. Then somehow
a woman named Margaret [H.] Hamilton was hired. She was brilliant,
and within a year she was my boss’s boss, Margaret Hamilton.
If you go to Central Square, Cambridge today and just look at the
organizations that are situated in Central Square today you’ll
find that there’s a Hamilton [Technologies, Inc.] computer engineering
company there.
Johnson:
And that’s her.
Klumpp:
And that’s her. The only fault I find with that is that she’s
done the reverse. All the people that work there are women.
Johnson:
Kind of giving a leg up to the female side?
Klumpp:
Yes. Meanwhile, even though when I graduated from MIT they had only
50 women at MIT, now it’s about half-and-half. I think that
women have advanced properly.
Johnson:
Yes, at least there’s a lot more now than there used to be.
That’s very true.
Klumpp:
I think that in most colleges there is about half-and-half nowadays,
and that’s the way it should be.
Johnson:
When Margaret Hamilton came to the Instrumentation Lab, what was the
reaction of people you worked with? Were there men that said, “No,
I don’t want to work with a woman”?
Klumpp:
I don’t remember that there were. In general, people were trying
to be fair about things at the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory. Not
only about the relationship there, but also about the difference between
Christian and Jewish religions. The holiday season was called the
yule season, so it wasn’t either Christian or Jewish.
Johnson:
Yes, it was very forward thinking at the time, wasn’t it?
Klumpp:
I think it was, yes. I like that way of thinking.
Johnson:
Seems like it was a good place to work at that point in time.
Klumpp:
It was, yes. There wasn’t any doubt about it.
Johnson:
When you were there at the beginning, I was reading that you worked
on a pen-and-ink drawing of the simulations of what the views of the
lunar surface would look like outside of the LM [lunar module] cockpit
for the astronauts to train.
Klumpp:
That’s right, I did. That’s what I was assigned to do
actually. I allowed the people who used the simulator to specify what
craters were on the Moon in the vicinity of the landing spot and what
they looked like. I would draw pictures of what the craters would
look like as you came down into a proposed landing site, where you
could specify. I actually made a movie of it. It was very coarse in
time, where I every two seconds during the descent drew a picture
of what the craters would look like at that point. That was a pretty
crude movie, but it seemed to catch the attention of an awful lot
of people.
Johnson:
Did that allow you to be assigned to other projects because of that?
Klumpp:
That was just part of what I was doing on the lunar descent. You might
be interested in Don [Donald] Eyles. You’ve heard of Don Eyles
and his book [Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir].
Johnson:
Right. I was reading some excerpts from things that he had written,
too.
Klumpp:
That is an excellent book. I’m still in the process of reading
it actually because I’ve still been working on this project,
but it’s an excellent book. But Don Eyles, you might want to
know—are you interested in things that are primarily amusing?
Johnson:
We always like good stories, yes.
Klumpp:
Don Eyles at one point—he was a member of my team. So he was
translating everything that I did in a higher order language. He was
translating that to the language of the Apollo guidance computer.
At one point he and I had a difference of opinion about something
that I thought should be in his translation that wasn’t there.
I asked him to put it there, and we had a back-and-forth argument
about it. He didn’t want to put it there, but eventually he
did. But he put it in a box. The box surrounded the new code and had
an explanation at the top of the box, “The code in this box
was added at the demand of a Byzantine dodo bird.”
In later years, he forgot he ever had that in there. It disappeared
after not very long. It was there for a short time, but there was
a Byzantine dodo bird in that box, referring to me. Byzantine means
in the 15th century.
Johnson:
He was pretty young when he was recruited, from what I read.
Klumpp:
Yes, he was. He was very sure of himself. I’m sure you should
be interested in what actually happened when he first started out.
We had a simulator that was already being used by about 300 different
people. He looked and started reading the code in the simulator and
he noticed that there was a mistake in one place. The simulator was
run by just boxes of [punch] cards. There’s about 2,000 cards
in a box this long [demonstrates], and several boxes of cards involved
in the total simulator, which had been developed by hundreds of people.
He found this error, and he was so sure of himself—because he
was a member of the Mensa society and still is, which is a group of
people whose intelligence is way above average. He was so sure of
himself that when he found the errors, he was sure that he could easily
fix that in no time, and he threw away the cards. So the cards were
lost. The first attempt to fix it didn’t work, the second attempt
to fix it didn’t work.
It took him a week to get it going, and finally George [W.] Cherry,
who was his supervisor—he was also the person that had assigned
me to work on the Apollo Lunar-Descent Guidance—came to me and
asked me, “We’ve lost 300 man-weeks of time because of
Don Eyles’s screwup.” He said, “I think we should
fire him.”
I said, “I don’t think so. He works so well, he’ll
make it up.” George finally decided not to fire him.
Johnson:
Did he finish it?
Klumpp:
Yes, he sure did, yes. Not only that, eventually in Apollo 14, when
the abort switch failed, Don Eyles figured out a procedure that the
astronauts could follow so that the failure of the abort switch—which
was failing over and over and over again—would not prevent them
from landing. That saved Apollo 14.
So Don Eyles did the work that caused Mayor Kevin [H.] White of Boston
[Massachusetts] to award an honorary prize to the entire lab. He specified
that anybody that was on the lab at the time that that was done would
share in that award of good work. He wasn’t just singling out
Don Eyles for doing it.
I happened to have arrived at the lab quite a bit early the day of
the Apollo 14. The descent wasn’t normally going to be started
until something like 10:00 p.m., and since I had arrived at the lab
at about 5:00 in the morning to do other things and make sure of something
else that I didn’t think would be a problem—and it turned
out it wasn’t a problem, I actually figured that out during
that day.
But by the time around 9:00 that night, I was getting pretty tired.
So I went to the only place that you could actually lie down and get
some sleep about 7:00 p.m. or something that day, after having been
there for 14 hours. I went to sleep in the hallway that led to the
ladies’ room. When I was finally awakened and told what had
happened, Don Eyles had already fixed it, and the landing had already
taken place.
So I got an award from Mayor Kevin White for being asleep in the ladies’
room.
Johnson:
For taking a nap. That’s pretty funny. If he hadn’t figured
that out, they wouldn’t have been able to actually land.
Klumpp:
They wouldn’t have been able to land, because the switch—the
communication went like this. “Houston, the abort switch is
on again.” “Well, turn it off.” After that happened
for quite a few times, it became clear that it was failing. It took
17 minutes to go down. It was failing once every minute or two, so
the probability of landing was very close to zero. If he hadn’t
figured out a procedure that they could follow—so Don Eyles
actually saved Apollo 14. But I claim I saved Apollo 14 indirectly
by having Don Eyles still there.
Johnson:
That’s right, you kept him from being fired, so you deserve
that award too. I was reading that what he did would normally take
a week or so to figure out, and he did it in such a short period of
time.
Klumpp:
He had the mental strength to do something that very few people did.
Johnson:
It’s pretty impressive.
Klumpp:
Yes, it was. No doubt about it.
Johnson:
Talk about when you were with the Instrumentation Lab and you were
working on that descent guidance and the LM steering systems. At NASA,
at Johnson [Space Center, JSC], there was the Mission Planning and
Analysis Division.
Klumpp:
MPAD, yes.
Johnson:
MPAD, they were working on that. Talk about the relationship between
MPAD and the IL where you were, and how that relationship worked.
Did you work with anyone at JSC or at NASA at that time?
Klumpp:
I did, yes, I worked with Jim [James H.] Alphin primarily at JSC.
I also worked with other people at JSC too, one of whom had come up
with a scheme for the descent guidance which would improve the performance
in terms of how much fuel it would take to do the landings. One of
the JSC people did come up with an improvement to that and I supported
him on the improvement.
But the person who had to make the decision on it, Bill [Howard Wilson]
Tindall [Jr.]. You’ve probably heard of him. He’s not
living anymore, I understand. But he decided against the improvements
that the JSC fellow had made, because it didn’t make enough
difference. It reduced the fuel consumption but not by enough to really
matter, and Tindall decided that it wasn’t worth changing everything
around for such a small improvement.
I must say I think that Tindall was the best manager I ever worked
with. He was just absolutely right on everything that he decided should
go. I thought he was even right on turning down that reworking the
descent guidance to the extent that would be necessary if you actually
adopted that improvement. There was no doubt it was an improvement,
but not enough to be worth the cost of overthrowing everything that
was there already in order to make such a small improvement.
I thought that Bill Tindall was the best manager I ever had worked
with. There wasn’t one thing I ever saw him decide that I didn’t
think was right.
Johnson:
We’ve heard from a lot of people about him. That he was able
to listen in a meeting to everybody’s information and ideas,
and then take that information and condense it down into the right
decision.
Klumpp:
Exactly. Yes, that is true. I think that he deserves to be remembered
for the quality of his management, which was absolutely superb.
Johnson:
I know he was famous at JSC for his “Tindallgrams” [memoranda].
Klumpp:
Exactly.
Johnson:
Did you get those, too?
Klumpp:
They’re still being circulated actually. They’re still
being circulated. People that go to the luncheons, those of us who
did so much work on Apollo, are still speaking about Tindallgrams
decades later.
Johnson:
It’s an amazing legacy.
Klumpp:
Yes, it is. It’s an amazing legacy just to have worked with
so many people, not one of whom ever failed to the point that we lost
any missions.
Johnson:
I was reading, and it was attributed to you, that you said, about
Apollo, that the task was a daunting one because there was no possibility
you could ever try again. I thought that was interesting. When you
first started working on this, you were very aware that it had to
work. The software had to work. Sometimes when we talk to people they’re
so focused on what they’re doing, the technical part of it,
the realization of what they were really working on and what it meant
to the entire nation—they didn’t really see that until
after it was over. But it sounds like you were aware that it was extremely
important when you were working on it. Did you have any idea about
the way the world would react once you helped accomplish that?
Klumpp:
I didn’t have any idea about how it would react, but I got a
definite impression about the difference between our program and the
Russians’ program. Because several months before the landing
in 1969, there was a worldwide meeting in Vienna, Austria, in which
the Russians and the U.S. were each going to describe all the things
that we worked out. We had no restriction. We could tell the Russians
anything at that point, so we were given full authority to tell them
everything.
There were Russians there, and my talk to them on the descent guidance
came before their response to it. The Russians were in the audience,
and asking me every once in a while questions about “How does
this work?” And I explained to them, and they seemed to understand
everything.
Then when it came to their turn, I started asking them the same kinds
of questions about the same things. “Well, how does yours work
on this?” They always said, “I can’t understand
the question.” Even though they could understand my answers,
they couldn’t understand my questions using the same words.
Johnson:
They weren’t going to share their information as freely.
Klumpp:
They weren’t going to share their information at all.
Johnson:
That’s interesting that you got to go to that meeting though.
Klumpp:
I thought it was, too. But years later there was another meeting between
the various nations in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia [now Croatia], which
is right on the coast. It was going to be another meeting where the
Russians and we were going to interchange our ideas. But the Russians
were not intermixing, even though there were people from Germany and
so forth. They were not intermixing with any of the rest of us. They
went everywhere on their own bus.
Then finally, at the end of that meeting in Dubrovnik, there was a
time we were going to have a picnic on an island that was off the
coast by five miles or something. We were all going to be together
on the motorboat that was going to take us all out to that island
so we could enjoy one another socially.
Nobody had seen any of the Russians before we all got on that boat
together. I asked one of the Russians, “Why is it that you’re
not intermixing with the rest of us much, but you’re going only
on your own bus all the time?”
The guy who I asked that question said, “Well, when we came
here to Dubrovnik they gave us only chewing gum money, and if we pooled
all of our money it would not be enough to buy an aircraft ticket
anywhere else.” So we got the picture that they were still being
unduly controlled by their government. You may remember [Mikhail S.]
Gorbachev from Russia, who was the most humane of the Russian leaders,
I thought. In fact, he became so well known in the United States that
people said that if he were to run for president here, he’d
probably win.
Johnson:
In those early days of Apollo, one of the things you worked on was
programming flights on a simulator, because the crew wanted to land
themselves. They were wanting to do things more manually. You programmed
manual flights into the simulator, and every time you did that with
the crew controlling it they crashed. So you knew at that time that
the landing was going to have to be a combination of that crew ability,
or what they wanted to do, but you had to have that computer support.
Klumpp:
I had programmed that the crew could specify where they were landing
by manipulating a stick, like the joystick on an airplane. Each time
you moved the stick forward or aft it would respecify where the landing
site was, either forward or aft, according to the direction you moved
it. Or left and right, it would do the same thing left and right.
That was very soon adopted as being the way that it was going to work.
The only thing that I did differently than the way that it actually
did work in flight was that I had it so that it would move the landing
site, where it was located, left or right by about the same amount
in terms of the length. The astronauts decided that they would rather
have it move by the same angle, whether it was forward or aft or whatever.
So that’s what actually flew.
Johnson:
Was that the landing point designator?
Klumpp:
LPD, yes, that’s right. That’s the way that worked. That
was my idea. Except for changing the constants involved, it worked
the way that it was supposed to.
Johnson:
That gave the commander, as they were landing, the ability to manually
make those last-minute changes in case the computer had designated
a place that wasn’t necessarily a good place to land.
Klumpp:
Yes, for instance on a pile of rocks or something like that. You could
always change where the landing site was by moving this control stick.
It turned out that I wasn’t the only one who thought of that.
There was another person who did think of that some years earlier.
Phil [Philip G.] Felleman had thought of that earlier. I don’t
know whether you know of Phil Felleman or not. He’s no longer
here, he died quite a few years ago. But he said, “We had that
running years ago.” I have no way of verifying or denying it,
so I will just allow that to stand.
Johnson:
That was a little different though. With other spaceflight that came
before Apollo, they didn’t give that much control to the astronauts.
So this was a little different. It was a hybrid between allowing the
computer to do it, and then letting them control what they were going
to do.
Klumpp:
That’s right.
Johnson:
It definitely came in handy on Apollo 11.
Klumpp:
Yes.
Johnson:
Talk about some of the work leading up to Apollo 11. You mentioned
sleeping on the couch during Apollo 14, but also working up until
that first landing you were spending a lot of hours at the lab. What
were your days like? How often did you get to come home?
Klumpp:
The days were long days. You know of another book by Hugh Blair-Smith
[Left Brains for the Right Stuff: Computers, Space, and History].
Have you seen that book? Don Eyles wrote a book, but Hugh Blair-Smith
also wrote a book.
Hugh Blair-Smith was the most amazing help, and he was just helpful
to everybody. How he managed to do it is just beyond me, because I
was working in batches of software. I’d collect a whole lot
of different thoughts, and gradually work out the thoughts. Before,
it was necessary—with the way in which our computer system worked—to
have spreadsheets with all of the work showing on the sheets. That’s
what the computer actually operated with in the early days. There
was no visual thing at all, it was all just on paper.
We’d work on a large amount of software which would involve
several sheets of paper being changed, and submit the entire paper,
and that’s what would fly on the simulator. The next day we
would get results back, sometime the next day. Because if you were
working there till 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., or 11:00 or midnight—and
I actually worked many days until midnight. In fact, when it came
to putting that in, I oftentimes came to work one morning and didn’t
come home until the next night. So it was a 36-hour, 40-hour day.
The computers didn’t work so fast that you could immediately
tell what was going on with your run.
Hugh Blair-Smith, when I submitted my output to the computer, was
oftentimes still there. Since he designed the computer language, he
knew how to read those sheets. The next morning when I would come
to work—and this happened dozens of times—I’d find
his output on my desk the following morning with a note saying, “You
made a mistake at this point and I corrected it and here’s the
corrected output.” He was there much longer than I was.
Johnson:
That’s pretty amazing.
Klumpp:
It is. The number of times that happened was dozens.
Johnson:
Really. I guess it was good that he was finding the mistakes, that’s
for sure. I imagine working long hours made it hard sometimes not
to make mistakes.
Klumpp:
Yes, that’s true. In one particular case I took a taxi home
at midnight, and the financial people at Draper Lab decided that they
weren’t going to pay for taxis home, even though it was at midnight
that I took a taxi home. The managers who had final responsibility
even over the financial people said, “You will pay for the taxi.”
So they did pay, but they had originally supplied me with a notice
that they weren’t going to pay for taxis home at midnight, and
they were overridden.
Johnson:
That’s good, because I imagine you were a little too tired to
drive at that point. Think they’d rather have you back safely
the next day than worry about that.
In 1967, I was reading that you were about midway into developing
the guidance and navigation hardware and software. Your group received
an unusual directive from NASA, and that was to make no attempt to
avoid gimbal lock. It was a problem that you were worried about in
the simulations, but they told you basically not to worry about it,
and not to attempt to fix that, and to move forward. But I believe
actually after you did what you were told, you went back and figured
out how to fix it anyway.
Klumpp:
I did. I had figured out a way to fix it. That was after Apollo 12
had flown. NASA decided that they weren’t going to use it for
Apollo 13, because it hadn’t been sufficiently tested, since
it had only been fixed shortly after Apollo 12 flew. They decided
not to adopt it.
But the commander of Apollo 13 [James A. Lovell, Jr.]—I knew
him pretty well, and I knew he was training at the Cape [Canaveral,
Florida]. I called him one morning about 6:30 in the morning. I knew
he got up awful early to be training. I called him at 6:30 in the
morning, and I told him about what the differences would be depending
upon whether it was flown or not.
I didn’t hear what was going to happen during the telephone
conversation because it was his bosses who had decided not to do that,
not him really. But the morning that I called him at 6:30 in the morning,
we had about a half-an-hour conversation. About 10:00 a.m. that day
my boss came into my office and said to me, “Your political
savoir faire has reached a new low,” because he had heard what
had happened.
Jim Lovell was able to persuade NASA to use the new program, and that’s
what flew on Apollo 13. The new program did fly on Apollo 13.
Johnson:
Why don’t we go ahead and talk about working up to Apollo 11?
I was reading that part of what you did, there was a Guidance Systems
Operations Plan, GSOP. Part of what you took part in was crew training.
Were you training the astronauts on the guidance systems operations
plan so that they would be familiar with it during the flight?
Klumpp:
Yes. It was really amazing how that crew training went off, because
the commander of Apollo 12 was by far the most capable of the commanders.
Johnson:
Pete [Charles] Conrad [Jr.]?
Klumpp:
Pete Conrad, yes. He was absolutely amazing. He asked all of us who
had written anything about what we had been doing—he asked to
get copies of anything we had written, and he was absolutely unbelievable
in terms of what he could understand.
When we were doing the crew training—supposedly we were doing
the crew training. When we were talking about various technical details,
often after we had described one of the details of it, he would speak
up and say, “Don’t you mean such and such?” and
describe it. No matter who he was talking to, the answer was always,
“You’re right, Pete, that’s the way it should be
described.” He was amazing in his ability to understand things
and make corrections if necessary. The rate at which he thought, the
way that he got the answers right so fast that you just couldn’t
believe that he could think that fast.
After Apollo 12 had flown to the Moon and back I happened to be at
Houston for something else. I forget what it was, but I was in one
of the hangars in Houston and he walks in. Just being around somebody
who had actually walked on the Moon was exciting to me. I said, “Pete,
you’re not going to tell me you’ve actually walked on
the Moon, are you?” His answer was, “No, it was a trick
we did with mirrors.” Repeating what the public had been led
by some people to believe, that there had never been an Apollo mission
to the Moon.
Johnson:
He did have a good sense of humor from what we hear.
Klumpp:
He did. He was a real joy to work with, at the level of Bill Tindall.
Bill Tindall and Pete Conrad were two of a kind in terms of their
intelligence and their ability to knock down the right answer that
fast.
Johnson:
When you were doing that training, was that in Houston? The crew training
on the GSOP?
Klumpp:
It took place in various places, I think both at the MIT Instrumentation
Laboratory and in Houston. But it hardly mattered where it took place,
because as far as Conrad was concerned he was always on top of it.
Johnson:
Were all the Apollo astronauts trained at the same time or was it
by crew?
Klumpp:
There were groups of astronauts. I don’t know whether it was
all of them at the same time, but nobody ignored what Tindall or Conrad
said.
Johnson:
Talk about for a minute that GSOP. That was a documentation of the
software for the systems that they would be working with. It was large,
from what I read. It was pretty wieldy and large. Documentation though
is important. Can you talk about the need for accurate documentation?
Plus you were very specialized in what you did. You were a computer
programmer, software developer, engineer, and you were talking to
pilots. Very smart pilots obviously, very intelligent and capable.
But you were also teaching them things that wasn’t their specialty.
Maybe talk about teaching them those programs and things that they
would have to understand?
Klumpp:
What happened with two of the candidates for becoming astronauts was
that they asked me, and probably other people, to send them copies
of what we had written. I did, and I suspect they probably got them
from other people, too. Both of them have walked on the Moon now.
They both made it.
Johnson:
That was quite an experience, getting to teach them the things that
they would need to know to do that. Let’s talk about some of
the programs that you were writing during that time. I noticed some
of the names were interesting. The one on Apollo 5, I was reading
the program’s name was SUNBURST, and then Apollo 9 it was SUNDANCE.
And then Apollo 11, I think by that time the program had evolved and
it became LUMINARY. Those were some of the program names, which I
thought was interesting. Where did the names come from, do you remember?
Klumpp:
I don’t know. I do know what the version numbers were. LUMINARY
130 flew on Apollo 12, and was about to be repeated on Apollo 13 when
I got authorization to release the one that corrected the errors from
Apollo 11. So that was 131. If you want to think of it in terms of
the number 13—which stupidly is considered to be a bad luck
number—that’s 13 going and coming, and so LUMINARY 131
did fly on Apollo 13.
Johnson:
As we know even today, computer programs are constantly being improved.
As you were working through all these, all the way up to Apollo 11
these programs were being changed, evaluated, simulated, and everything
was moving forward for Apollo 11.
Klumpp:
That’s true.
Johnson:
So you had different revisions even as you went through the program
itself. On Apollo 11, let’s talk about the launch. You got to
go see the launch, is that correct?
Klumpp:
That is correct, yes. Anybody who had made a major contribution, NASA
invited them to go to Florida to watch the liftoff of Apollo 11. That
included my wife and me. None of our children did, but Sue and I both
did.
Johnson:
That’s quite a perk for all the hours you put in though.
Klumpp:
Yes. I did put in quite a bit few more hours than I was paid for,
but to be able to participate in something as important as that was
well worth it.
Johnson:
Can you talk about that experience of seeing the launch and how you
felt seeing it?
Klumpp:
We were in like the grandstand surrounding a football field, and we
could all see and hear the launch take place. Seeing that was very
exciting, and hearing it—it was making such an enormous amount
of noise that it was practically ear-shattering to watch Apollo 11
take off for the Moon. That was really quite an experience. It was
just like the bleachers of a football field. There must have been
100,000 people there or something.
Johnson:
The roadways, everybody was just pulled over and camping. The photos
are amazing, when you look at the photos of the roads and everything
around there. Quite an accomplishment.
Klumpp:
I think that we got there using an Avis rental car. It landed in Orlando,
Florida, and we drove there. But I had already established a reputation
at Avis, because several times actually earlier I had stopped at Orlando
on my way to something that was going on at NASA. The first time I
used Avis was an interesting experience, because the Avis rental car
people never forgot me after that first trip that I used one of their
cars.
The reason why was that when I first got in the car and I had driven
a few miles down the road, I noticed that the water temperature had
gone up and it shouldn’t have gone up. I figured that the radiator
must have been not filled. They must have given me a car that didn’t
have the radiator full, and that’s the reason why it was going
up. I had just come down from Boston, and I had in my bladder enough
to finish filling the radiator, I thought. So I finished filling the
radiator, parked next to the road.
Johnson:
That’s one way to do it.
Klumpp:
That didn’t quite fill the radiator, but then there was a crew
that was working next to the road, right next to a stream. I parked
there and got them to give me some muddy water. I filled it the rest
of the way with the muddy water from the radiator. After that, every
time when I rented an Avis car, they said, “Oh, you’re
the guy who—”
Johnson:
That’s quite a reputation to have.
One of the things your daughter mentioned, one of the stories you
told them, was that there was some kind of a mix-up at one point.
I don’t know when this took place, between measurements taken
in metric versus imperial. Was that with Apollo or was that later
on?
Klumpp:
No, that was an unmanned mission to Mars [Mars Climate Orbiter]. I
do remember quite well what happened, although I didn’t actually
witness it. I remember it quickly made the rounds at JPL that there
were a couple of guys that had a fistfight. Each one saying, “You
caused this. You made this mistake and that mission crashed.”
“No, you made it.” They actually had a fistfight I’m
told. I didn’t watch it, but I have no reason to disbelieve
it.
But it turned out that neither of them did. That wasn’t a mission
that I worked on, because not one of the missions I worked on ever
failed. I hadn’t worked on that mission, but it turned out that
I did share in the knowledge of what actually did happen. It was that
in Colorado there was an aerospace company that JPL had hired to process
the data that would relate how the attitude control—that’s
the orientation in space—was affecting the trajectory of the
rocket that was coasting from Earth to Mars. The data turned out to
be wrong, and instead of entering at the right place at Mars, because
the data was wrong it entered at the wrong place and the mission was
lost. That’s what happened on that mission.
What had happened was that the specification about the data that they
gave us back from their analysis had to be in the metric system of
units, and they didn’t pay any attention to that. Who knows
why? Your guess is as good as mine. Nobody I think knows why they
didn’t do that. But it was in the English system of units, and
that makes it very wrong, and so that mission crashed. But fortunately
I never had that happen on any mission that I worked on, and that’s
just good luck. That’s all you can assign it to. I was just
very lucky that never happened.
Johnson:
Let’s go back to Apollo 11 then. Talk about when the LM actually
landed on the Moon and that time, and some of the alarms that were
going off. You and Don Eyles had been working for three years at that
point to produce those programs to get that LM on the Moon.
Klumpp:
I know exactly what happened.
Johnson:
Let’s talk about that, and if you don’t mind, where you
were, and how you were listening to the landing. Was that something
that you heard real-time as it was happening?
Klumpp:
Yes, it was. I happened to be in the room in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
where it was being broadcast. We kept hearing, “Another alarm.”
What had happened was—and I learned that shortly thereafter,
exactly what did happen.
There was a fellow named Russ [Russell A.] Larson. Long before that
I had shared an office with Russ Larson for a short period of time.
He told me what happened at the 25th anniversary of Apollo 11. He
told me that what had happened was that the commander of Apollo 11
and/or the person who was going to be the copilot—
Johnson:
On Apollo 11, it was Neil [A.] Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
Klumpp:
Armstrong and Aldrin, yes. One or the other had told him that. Russ
Larson had been asked to make up the crew checklist, and one of them
called him on the phone and said that we should start the abort guidance
to run by turning on the switch for that before we actually begin
the descent. Because if you do that and we have to abort, we don’t
lose time getting the computer to change what it’s doing and
return to where the command and service module—where in orbit
we could reduce the time to rendezvous with the other vehicle. That
would make an abort safer. So Russ Larson said that since he was being
asked that by the astronauts, he just added that to the crew checklist
to turn on the abort guidance well in advance.
But then when it actually went to landing what had happened was that—the
facts are that turning on the abort guidance, and running that along
with the descent guidance at the same time, increased the load on
the computer by 15 percent and there was only an 8 percent margin.
There was only an 8 percent margin, but it increased the load on the
computer by 15 percent. That’s the reason why there was all
that series of alarms that came primarily during the most busy phase,
which was as you approached the landing site.
So that was causing a whole series of 1202 or whatever the number
was. Those alarms were all being generated because of what Russ Larson
did. That’s what he told me 25 years after it had happened,
so I didn’t even know till that time.
Johnson:
I believe he also told you that he was afraid to talk?
Klumpp:
Yes. When he told me that, he said that what happened, what he did
during that landing, was that he was there watching. It was set up
so that you could watch on a single screen the actual trajectory and
the one that had been programmed. He was watching that on the screen.
I knew that Russ never knew—he didn’t know the difference
between those. He didn’t understand how those landings worked
well enough to know that it didn’t take very much. You could
hardly even see the difference on a plot, between an actual trajectory
and a trajectory that was going to go down under the surface and come
back out after having—because simulators don’t know about
the consequences of having a negative altitude above the surface.
So he was watching that, and he thought that it looked like they were
pretty close together. But I knew, had known for years, that they
can look like it’s very close together—but you can fly
under the surface and back out and get to the right place in the simulator,
which isn’t affected by going under and back out of the surface.
So I knew that he didn’t understand enough to have been doing
that anyway.
But he said that he eventually was called from where the people were
actually controlling things at Houston, “Are we go or are we
abort?”
“I just gave them,” he said, “a thumbs-up signal.”
I said, “Well, why didn’t you just tell them, ‘We’re
go’?”
He said, “I was too scared to speak.”
Johnson:
Things did work out, but I imagine during the time when you were listening
to it as they’re trying to land and those alarms were going
off—I imagine that was pretty frightening.
Klumpp:
It was most frightening because the slight changes of the trajectory
were using more fuel than what people counted on. When they finally
touched down they had only 30 seconds left of fuel in the tanks for
a roughly 17-minute descent. Thirty seconds left. Nobody likes to
drive a car that close. He finally did do the final descent himself.
Johnson:
I know it was pretty frightening for the people in Mission Control,
so I imagine listening to it where you were at MIT it was pretty frightening
there, too.
One of the things I read in one of the articles that Don Eyles had
written, that it really bothered him—because after the landing,
everything was okay, but the media was portraying it as a computer
error. It really bothered him that that was happening because it wasn’t
a computer error, as you explained. Do you remember that, or being
bothered by that, too?
Klumpp:
I never was bothered by obviously wrong reports. So I was not bothered
by that.
Johnson:
Because you knew—well, you found out eventually—the true
reason. But you went for 25 years without really knowing what the
actual cause was. What did you think during that time before you talked
to Russ Larson, in that 25-year period what did you think the problem
was?
Klumpp:
Unexplained.
Johnson:
You just weren’t sure.
Klumpp:
I didn’t know what caused that. I didn’t know what actually
caused it until Russ Larson told me.
Johnson:
I think what we’ll do is we’ll stop for today and then
come back tomorrow. We’ll pick up on some of the other Apollo
missions and go on from there on your career.
[End
of interview]
Return to JSC Oral History Website