Hacker News Reader

I've heard or read of this before, the first bullet, and can't help but to compare this to what has happened with the 737 Max 8 current issue.

From the PDF comes: "Apollo gains a measure of simplicity from features simple both in design and operation, complex in design but simple to operate, or simple by being passive in function. The concept of simple design and simple operation is best illustrated by the Apollo rocket-propulsion systems (fig. 2-2)."

View on HN

For a machine as complex as the Saturn 5 rocket, it is truly a credit to the builders that it never suffered a major failure in any of the manned missions. Same for the LM rocket which returned the astronauts to the command module. Both had to absolutely work and both did.

As John Glenn quipped "It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract."

Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee :(

I do get your point, and it's amazing it worked as well as it did. Space is tough, and things are likely to go wrong, just as they still do with civil aviation.

Silly nitpick: Apollo 1 was a Saturn 1B not a Saturn 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

It also wasn't a "mission". They were performing in a test. And, in any case, the fire wasn't a fault of the rocket; it was a fire in capsule.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com